First, do you feel the same coming the other way? That is, do you feel that the voters in Louisanna are not “forcing” others in their state to support or follow their views when they voted against SSM?
Let’s put this in another context, that of Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience. In this essay, he argues that moral men should not fight in, should not even pay taxes because of, the Mexican-American War. He felt this was a war to extend slave territories, an immoral war to him. Should we support (whether it is with our lives or our dollars) a government that is acting in a manner that we find immoral? To Thoreau that answer was no. I’m not sure what the answer is, or rather, to what extent the answer is no. Clearly, both sides of the SSM debate claim the moral high-ground, and both sides can make their arguments well.
Here again we delve into murky waters. I understand that you believe that SSM encompasses an Equal Right, and I completely respect anyone that comes to that conclusion through rational thought and reflection. However, I think this is far from an established view in this country. Therefore, despite the fact that you may well be right, the continued expression of this (or similar) statements does not advance your argument.
I am not denying the need to re-examine our values and institutions, in fact I hold quite the opposite view. However, the continued expression of sentiments such as those posted here do not constitute this examination. The fight against ignorance is not advanced by claiming one side is wrong for holding totheir beliefs while remaining blind to the fact that other side is just as guilty.
And what of other people’s claims to other rights? Which is more basic of a right, governmental recognition of a union or the individual rights of conscience? If these rights come into conflict, which should yield? Why? These are not easy questions, and I doubt that most of the people (in general, not refering to you or anyone else in particular) who have made a decision regarding this question have made a logical, rational, and dispassionate inquiry into these questions.
I certainly have no problem at all with allowing consenting adults to do whatever they like with their personal lives (and this extends far beyond the rather limited bounds of sexual/relationship preferences). However, it is a bit disingenuous to sum up all the facets of the SSM debate in this manner. Marriage conveys upon the participants certain privileges that (do, or at least can) bring them out of the private sphere and into the public. It is here, in the public sphere, that their union begins to interact with others.
I do not, nor will I ever, defend those who oppose SSM on grounds of squeamishness. I find these to be among the lowest of all those who have opinions on this matter. I find it a bit misleading, though, to paint all opponents with this brush. There are those who truly have moral objections to the idea of supporting SSM.
But they do ask, implicitly, that people give up their rights to their consciences. There is a conflict of rights here for those who truly believe in a certain morality.
By your logic, the fact that people are allowed to eat meat means that vegetarians have to “give up their rights to their consciences.”
By your logic, the fact that atheism is allowed means that religious people have to “give up their rights to their consciences.”
By your logic, the fact that alcohol is allowed means that teetotallers have to “give up their rights to their consciences.”
By your logic, the fact that Democrats are allowed means that Republicans have to “give up their rights to their consciences.”
etc., etc.
What a load of horseshit.
What is squeamishness, if not a moral objection?
Let me be clear here: I DON’T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THEIR MORAL OBJECTIONS.
They can have and hold their moral objections all they like, and i won’t bother them or tell them to change their minds. But when they use these moral objections to deny other members of society the right to join together in marriage, then i have a problem with them.
Some people “truly have moral objections to the idea of supporting” inter-racial marriage. Should we ban inter-racial marriage?
Some people “truly have moral objections to the idea of supporting” the consumption of meat products. Should we ban the eating of meat?
Some people “truly have moral objections to the idea of supporting” pre-marital sex. Should we ban pre-marital sex?
Some people “truly have moral objections to the idea of supporting” drinking. Should we ban alcohol?
Some people “truly have moral objections to the idea of supporting” the Republican Party. Should we ban the Republican Party?
Oh, I’d argue they do so explicitly. The same exact thing was true back in 1967 with miscegenation on the books (and snippits of opinions by at least one Virginia Supreme Court offered a none-savory tidbit of text). It was also true in the 50s with the desegregation of schools, with the desegregation of the military a decade earlier, with the granting of women the right to vote, with the lessening of legal separation of white man and black, etc etc etc. One difficult thing as I see it, however, is that those who “truly believe in a certain morality” often attach some measure of “squeamishness,” without which much of their opposition to SSM (and, in years gone by, those other matters above).
Somehow our society has managed not to devolve into abject anarchy despite these grand mals, though:)
I’m going to get trashed for this, but so be it. Akennett has been the most reasonable and astute participant in this debate. S/he has been making reasonable points with good logic. His/her getting slammed here demonstrates the fact that, when it comes to SSM, emotions often cloud the rational mind.
But before you start up on me, first know that I support SSM. I support it because a lot of people want it for themselves, having it will make them happy, and, most important of all, it will do little harm to others.
I also support the right of any two persons, whether they are sexually involved or not, related by blood or not, or in love or not, to acquire the same rights (and even the title “marriage” if they want it), imasmuch as it is untenable to have a litmus test for love or sexual involvement be a precondition to acquiring them. Note that this will have an extreme effect on immigration policy, where there are tests of whether people are really fucking each other, in love with each other, etc. No one seems to be considering this point.
So, my approach to SSM is utilitarian and practical. People want it; give it to them. In the future, if polyamorists squeak enough for the grease, we’ll have to give it to them too. It will be a new era of domestic partnership law, and I think it will be all-around fairer and better for the country. Our extremely, excessively individualistic and self-centered country.
And that brings us to our second point, where most of you will disagree and begin to call me “dicktard,” etc. There seems, in general, to be a misunderstanding that the support of SSM grows greater as one goes toward the left, becomes more liberal. This is mistaken.
A place like China under Mao would have laughed at the idea of SSM, not that the issue ever came up (AFAIK; while at the same time Mao greatly improved the place of women in society and even how they were treated within the relationship of marriage). Why? Because the original purpose of marriage was to control male-female relationships and reproduction in such a way as to benefit and support society. It was not about “true love,” it was not about “soul mates.” Whether you were gay or straight, you were forced to get married and have lots of kids (although there were other outlets too, such as abbeys, etc.).
I don’t think SSM could even become an issue except in a society as rich, self-indulgent, and individualistic as the US, and, in fact, it hasn’t. Now it may seem that I am being negative about SSM while saying I support it. Not so. I just think we should understand what it is and not be blinded by the realities of our society. It is a kind of social luxury.
Sure, there is the religious aspect too–Jesus doesn’t want it. But I think a lot of the opposition to SSM is based on the points above. There are a lot of people in our society who are doing the hard work of reproducing and making ends meet, the kind of hard work that sustains a society, while the bobos and yuppies want to alter their world of “marriage” (scant reward for their hardships in the first place) just for what they perceive as the hell of it.
The socialist in me wants to take a good hard look at how to benefit society as a whole. You have nations now with shrinking populations because people just don’t feel they can afford to have kids, or they’re losing interest. Italy’s population has already shrunk drastically, going down by more than a percent in the last year, and Japan’s population is set to be cut in half or some such apocalyptic thing in the next 50 years. The US itself would have a shrinking population but for immigration.
So yes: I’m in favor of giving people what they want, equal rights and all that. But I oppose the extreme individualism of the US, which threatens literally to destroy our society. We’ve got to take everything into consideration when we begin such social engineering.
Um, the two words in question admit of definition: “equal” and “right.” It seems rather difficult for me to grasp how someone can assert, without semantic quibbles, that there is presently a state of equal rights on this issue. I can grasp the logic that gay and straight people have equal rights to marry somone of the opposite sex – but that’s like saying that Gary Coleman and Shaquille O’Neal have equal rights to be hired by the NBA.
I suspect I might agree with this if I could fathom what the heck you’re saying here. And that’s not an insult – you have generalized a view to the point that I’m not very clear what the point you’re trying to make is. Could I get a rephrasing?
My particular take on this is that you are under no obligation to do one thing about SSM except to avoid “pissing in the pool.” You need not extend to such people as enter into SSMs your personal recognition that they are married if in fact your conscience tells you otherwise. Acceptance of a law as the law does not mean that you endorse the law – there are any number of elements in the General Statutes here with which I have strong disagreements, and would never have passed if I had had the deciding vote in the General Assembly. But they are the law of the land, and my choice is either to accept them as they stand, to lobby for their being changed, or to exercise my right to engage in civil disobedience as a protest against them, being aware of the consequences of so doing. How you feel about SSMs is between yourself and God; how you act is another matter.
And, by the way, what is “those who truly believe in a certain morality” supposed to imply? I sincerely hope that you’re not claiming a moral high ground here. Pray explain what you meant by it.
The trouble is, “they” don’t a fuck about what you think, either. Do you see why this creates an impasse?
In the past, marriage was a duty, not a right. I do NOT share the assumption that most people here seem to have, that all comes down to individual rights. I think the society as a whole also has its prerogatives.
That was part of a program of keeping black people down by preventing families from merging. It was evil, served only an oppressive purpose within society, and was correctly done away with.
Nope, and there are arguments against doing so.
It used to be “banned,” often quite explicitly in the laws. Can you see the social purpose that doing so served? It forced people to buy the cow before any milk was drunk, thereby supporting a stable platform for procreation.
Look beyond your mantra of “Rights! Rights!” and see what you find.
Not really, actually; historically speaking, marriage has generally been about property rights and distributions. (One of the reasons that uncle/niece marriage has historically been common is to make sure that family property remains in the bloodline.) There have even been cases of marriages that were established explicitly for that purpose and may well never have been ‘consummated’ at all. (I’m pretty sure that’s ancient Egyptian data; the only other thing that I’ve been reading recently that’s even remotely similar has been dealing with modern African perspectives on gender as it relates to homosexuality and marriage issues.)
Now, also historically speaking, children have been both a valuable form of property and the eventual recipients of the property in question. But the property has generally been central; children have been disowned, after all. (We have a copy of the will of an ancient Egyptian woman who made it quite clear that four of her children were not to receive any share in her portion of the marital property, because they didn’t treat her right.) Which leads rather logically to why patrilocal societies tend to value sons; daughters leave the family (and sometimes take a dowry with them).
We also have evidence of most of the dramas of modern life in the ancient world – romances, adultery, acrimonious divorce with endless property squabbles, sexual extortion, marriages that break up because of infertility . . . marriage has never been all that simple. Property is the perpetual bit, though; there have been divorce lawyers for over four thousand years for just that reason.
Huh? China under Mao was an examplar of social engineering. It’s also a dismal lesson in unintended consequences of a goverment expanding its mandate to sex. It doesn’t matter if the left or right does it. There isn’t a great track record for either “side” producing anything much beyond more problems.
I part company with you sharply that governments “give” people anything. Governments are nothing more than imaginary constructs that delineate what groups of people agree upon to function as a unit. At best they balance out deferred preferences with the benefits of cooperation so the group can muddle along. Rights aren’t “given”; they’re inborn. The question is what compromise relinquishment of those rights best balance the benefits of being part of that group. Extreme individualism or extreme control? Left and right end up pretty much the same place on that one, and it’s always on the side of the chosen imaginary construct.
Blindly refusing to recognize the reality of a significant portion of that group is just plain stupid. Insisting on all-or-none for marriage is the Volstead Act of sex. The original worked out about as well as Mao’s enforced social planning. Feh.
Gays exist. They’ve always existed. They love, spat, get cross-wise, work, pay taxes, and pretty much muddle along in life like everybody else in the group. Why should they, or anybody else, pretend they’re not? What does such a pretense actually gain anyway?
Actually, according to the current Atlantic Monthly (quoting the Congressional Budget Office) - between $350 and $450 million each year is lost because we’re not slapping homosexual couples with the marriage penalty. (they go on to mention that the amount dwarfs the amount that would be spent on government benefits to homosexual spouses).
So, no, taxpayers will not have been forced to do anything but take more money from people.
Only in so far as these others (1) have a moral objection to (not just a dislike for) the action in question and (2) the action in question is sanctioned by the government in such a way as they are unable to not support the action without coming under the threat of harm from the government.
I draw a distinction between those who don’t support SSM because “homosexuality is disgusting” and those who take a moral stance based on informed reflection, based on whatever religious/ethical code guides their life.
And yet you expect others to care about yours? Make no mistake about it, every claim put forth in support of SSM is a moral claim.
I think we should, when we are deciding the question, look at their claims, rather than just decrying them as “trying to force their ideas upon us.” I think we should admit that our own side is just as guilty of prematurely proclaiming a moral high ground as theirs. I think we should ask ourselves the hard questions, openly and honestly.
You are quite correct, iampunha. We have gone through changes, some of the quite drastic, without destroying our nation. I am not denying this, nor am I advocating that we don’t change. I am just questioning some of the (seemingly unquestionable) foundations of the widely supported view here.
Thank you, Aeschines. I’m glad that at least one person can see that my posts are not meant as an attack, but rather as a calm reflection (and in large part introspection). (Oh, and I be a he…at least the last time I checked )
And are you able to state that the view that SSM is an issue of equal rights is one that is a settled question in the current state of affairs? This is precisely what I questioned in my post. I think it is often hard for us all to see how the other side thinks on an issue, but the attempt to bring us toward an understanding is much more effective a way to get to a common ground than denying the possibility of the other side having a valid viewpoint.
Sure. I generalized in order to avoid the pitfalls of misunderstanding that come when we speak in terms of you, and us, and them, etc.
What I see in this thread (and others like it) is a constant barage of the same sentiments, expressed in the same manner, seemingly without reflection as to what underlies the arguments (I do not mean to imply that any individual is guilty of this, as I can not know the proces by which you all have come to your views). I admit fully that the key word here is “seemingly.” The same is true, BTW, of the other side of the debate.
When I then see statements like in the OP that people should be pitted for trying to force their views upon others, I read that as applying only to the opposing side (if it was a pitting of that act on both sides of the debate, then I apologize, but it seems that many of the others in this thread seem to think their side is immune). I was expressing the opinion that the only way to get anywhere of consequence in this type of debate is by calm, rational, logical discussion. This is in contrast to the constant refrain of “The Bible says so” and “Equal Rights” each with nothing behind them.
Again, I want to make this clear. I am not saying that any individual in this thread is guilty of this tactic, merely pointing out the problem and trying to offer avenues of approach for people to begin understanding another viewpoint on the issue.
For the most part I am in agreement with this. I have problems, though, when we get to the acceptance/endorsement dichotomy. I hate to continue harping on the money issue (as it seems so crass), but it is easier to see these issues in terms of tangible effects. The simplest example of how the acceptance of the law forces someone into endorsement of the action comes when they have to pay for some aspect of the act. Whether this is Joe taxpayer paying out in the form of government benefits or Reginald Richguy III being forced to grant SSM partners of his employees benefits that he extends to heterosexual married couples, each is forced to compromise his morals.
I am not stupid enough to think that this is the only thing that the government does that makes them face this choice, but I am uncomfortable enough with forcing my own morality on others to question my part in doing so. This is what makes the question much less black and white for me than for others (on both sides).
Actually, I mean that neither side has a true claim on the moral high ground. I am not claiming a moral high ground, rather I’m claiming a search for that high ground.
As for “certain morality” I mean that each of us who have reflected on the issues, who have asked ourselves the tough questions, have come up with our own point of view on these issues - our own morality in regards to thise particular issue. I did not mean to imply that there is one precise morality that you are missing that is correct. I meant, rather, that those who have searched for the truth should not be rejected merely because their truth is different from your own. I was also (I think unsuccessfully) trying to draw a distinction between those who have done this reflection and those who just have a visceral “Ew. Homosextuality, gross” reaction.
akennett, what about a situation where a hypothetical doomsday cultist who doesn’t believe in marriage, sex or procreation owns a small factory? Is that business owner required to extend benefits to his employees’ legal opposite-sex spouses? How is this a different situation than yours above regarding same-sex marriage?
Assuming that the numbers are correct, and the analysis flawless, this argument still fails because the tax money does not go into special little boxes separated from and independent of one another. The money brought in from the addition marriage penalty money of homosexual couples won’t be put into a special account labeled “SSM Benefits.”
Would you mind (and if I missed it in this thread, just lemme know which post number and paragraph(s)) showing me one? The religious objections I’ve seen all boil down to, in not so many words, “I don’t like the idea of homosexuality” at its best, and something less savory at worst.
Meanwhile, the notion that “because something is immoral [according to our morals - an add-on seldom applied], it should be illegal” is slowly being phased out. Cf. sodomy laws being struck down, most notably by SCOTUS, as well as gay marriage in Massachusetts.
Now here I was thinking my support of SSM had more to do with fulfilling the whole equal rights claptrap we have in this country. Silly me;)
The current march towards a constitutional amendment against SSM and attempting to define marriage narrowly in a purely heterosexual context is preventing families from merging and is serving only an oppressive purpose in society. The difference is that you are against it because of what seems like some very archaic thinking on what marriage is, was, and should be.
Perhaps you actually need to sit back, reread all of the things said by everyone else and actually listen rather than just formulating an argument which to some of us comes off as patronizing, belittling, and demeaning.
There are a couple of spots in which your hypothetical (may or does) differ, jayjay:
I am not sure on employment laws, but I don’t believe that any business is required to offer spousal benefits. This cultist would be free to offer these benefits or not. If SSM was allowed, however, a factory owner would (almost certainly) not be free to offer spousal benefits to heterosexual spouses and not homosexual ones, regardless of his moral view on the question*.
In this case, too, there is the matter of forcing change in defiance of belief. As our society stands now, the heterosexual marriage is, by default, recognized (statement of how things are, not neccessarily how they should be). Everyone who has gone into business in the recent past knows this default and has built up their structure around this. There is a difference in continuing this status quo and creating a new status quo without regard for the beliefs of those involved.
*Regardless of the moral view, I think it is just plain smart business to do what you can to attract good employees. I think smart employers should be offering SS benefits now. But I am philosophically opposed to forcing them to.
I’m not sure exactly what you are looking for here. I don’t think there has been anyone making a moral claim against SSM in this thread (at least not that I’ve seen). If you are asking in general for an argument, then I am not the best one to give you one, as I am not on that side (or any side really) of this issue, but I will do my best.
And you don’t think that this is a moral claim, especially given the manner in which these ideas came down in our country?
I think it is a matter of eliminating hypocrisy. If that is moral to you, so be it. I see it as being fair, which to me goes beyond the merely moral. The phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” does not apply itself here in a legal sense (though you wouldn’t know that for how often it’s cited). It is lifted from a treatise on the evils of monarchical government by Locke; perhaps someone more schooled in his treatises than I am can come and discuss whether his point had to deal with morality or some sort of universal property of people.
[sub]That lat bit might look like a non sequitur; it being near 4 AM here, I don’t have the mental acuity to join it properly. I hope someone will sufficiently understand why I have it there to connect it on my behalf.[/sub]
Of all the things I have read amongst the threads against equal rights, this is the saddest I have read on this message board.
That you cannot recognize human rights and continue to be an immense pedant, belittling and demeaning the value of others based on what some small minded people aren’t comfortable with is dispiriting to say the least.
You and Aeschines arrogantly position yourselves as demagogues, laying down to us how we will never be equal and that you both sympathize with every possible crocodile tear that you could ever hope to shed, you’re too attached to your point of view and can’t embrace the future.
Fifty years ago you would have been using the same arguements on why segregation should continue, and thirty years before that you’d have been tellaing the suffragettes that they should be glad not to have to awesome responsibility to vote.
And what point of view is that? Please, tell me what you know so well.
Since when is questioning a concept a bad thing?
Please show me where I said you will never be equal. Or is this more of the broad-brush tactics aimed to villify anyone who dares show an independence of mind and a refusal to join lock-step with your program?
Yep, and 100 years before that I would have been whistling dixie and taking pot-shots at Billie Yank. And 100 years before that I would have been wearing a red coat and marching to Rule Brittania. And 1500 years before that I would have been feeding Christians to the lions… :rolleyes:
)