I apologize for the double entry. Damn slow connection.
iampunha, I didn’t want to be accused of being a lurker or a watcher. I also wanted to register my support for The Jeff. He has been speaking on my behalf. So just cool down.
Though I know this will not convince you in anyway, I cannot let this slide. From a constitutional point of view, this is not allowable. Miscegenation laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967 in the famous case of Loving Vs. Virginia. “Virginia’s statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.” In that decision, Chief Justice Warren stated “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” While you may feel that this is not an analogous situation, I must point out to you that laws that prohibit who you can marry based on race are not allowable from a Constitutional point of view. If you want to read the entire text of the decision you can find a copy here.
I accidently his submit before I was ready. On a personal note, I want to say that I find your argument that gay men have the same rights as straight men to be insulting. By virtue of being heterosexual, which I cannot believe is inherently superior to being homosexual, you have to right to be married to a person that you love and have the state recognize that relationship and give you innumerable benefits based on that. Becuase I am gay, I do not have that. Even though my husband and I love each other just as much as any heterosexual couple, and have been togethor over 4 years, we are still treated as second class citizens.
While I would welcome civil unions that grant the same rights and benefits as marriage , I would still feel that I am a second class citizen. I refuse to accept that, and will fight until I am treated the same as a heterosexual under the law.
Chicago Faucet, I do not see the harm in lurking or watching a debate. I’ve done it plenty of times myself, and I know I’m not alone.
While he’s away, why not try posting your own arguments for your collective side? Might learn something:)
Well from my point of view, I’ve no problem with incestual marriage. I’d probably regard it as creepily bizarre, and I don’t see it becoming socially acceptable, but really it’s none of my business.
There are biological reasons that make it obvious that offspring from a incestual relationship are not a good idea. But this has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. Children from such relationships already occur, marriage is not a prerequisite. So whatever laws we have to outlaw incestual marriage would be better targeted at the bearing of children from any kind incestual relationship.
The good thing about same-sex marriage would be that this is not an issue. So even if you did wish incestual marriage to remain illegal it has no bearing on a same-sex marrriage.
Until you own up to basing your argument on a personal and subjective moral objection, (which are are free and welcome to have), you have absolutely no basis by which to compare the two or enforce your objections legally on others.
Okay, a few more comments, and then I’ll let this lie.
Jeeves:
You’re right, bans on inter-racial marriages are unconstitutional, having been declared as such by the Warren court. For that matter, bans on murder would be unconstitutional if the SCOTUS said so, since the realm of what is or is not constitutional is, by definition, whatever the SCOTUS says it is. It would be more accurate to say that I feel that bans on marriage shouldn’t be unconstitutional - ie, I feel that was a poor decision of the part of the SCOTUS, however repugnant the idea of banning same-sex marriages is. Similarly, I feel Roe v Wade, the recent Michigan ruling, the recent sodomy ruling, and many other things have been based on faulty logic (and/or wishful interpretations of the Constitution), completely regardless of whether or not abortion, AA, or sodomy should be banned.
I say that I feel the Warren ruling regarding inter-racial marriages is faulty because I feel, quite frankly, that marriage is not a right. Who you choose to live with is a right. Who you choose to love is a right. Who you choose to have sex with is a right. Having the government endorse and promote who you choose to do all of this with is not a right, in the same way that getting a tax break for running a small business is not a right. The government chooses to give tax breaks to certain behaviors because it views those behaviors as generally beneficial towards society as a whole. Similarly, the government should be allowed to bestow the moniker of “marriage” to certain people based on whether or not it perceives the unions in question to be beneficial to society or not. This is quite separate from the question of whether or not certain types of “marriages” should be banned - it is simply a matter of whether or not certain types of marriages can be banned. And under my interpretation of the 14th Amendment (not that my interpretation matters a fig as far as the SCOTUS is concerned, of course), any law that applies equally to every citizen of the US equally, regardless of how stupid a law it is, does not violate the Equal Protection clause. In the case of the ban on inter-racial marriages, based on my interpretation, it would not violate the EP clause because it applies to everyone equally. No black person can marry someone of a different race. No white person can marry someone of a different race. No hispanic person can marry someone of a different race. Stupid? Sure. In violation of the EP clause? Doesn’t seem so, to me.
Futile Gesture:
Well, my argument isn’t based on a personal and subjective moral objection. As I said before, I have absolutely no moral qualm against homosexuality. My argument is based on an objective analysis of what is best for society as a whole, speficially from an analysis of family structure. Traditional man-woman parenting units are, generally speaking, the best suited towards raising children, and raising children is the entire basis for the government granting legal recognition of marriage in the first place. That is my argument, in a nutshell.
I concede that there many problems facing same-sex couples that granting marriage privaleges too would alleviate. However, I don’t see marriage as the only, or the best, way of solving these problems. Can’t get in to visit your significant other in the hospital, because you’re not a spouse? That bites. But if I’m single and have a best friend whom I would want to be able to visit me, same-sex marriage privaleges wouldn’t do me a bit of good. The larger problem is that the hospital rules are broken, and need to be addressed. I should be able to have any single person I damned well please come and visit me, be it wife, gay lover, close friend, aunt, whatever. I should be able to declare anyone I want my next-of-kin, and treat anyone as my spouse for purposes of inheritance, life-partner or otherwise. Same-sex marriage does nothing here, either.
Regarding the whole issue of homosexuality vs incest, I’ll say again that I don’t think the two are comparable, only that certain parallels can be drawn between the two in the specific case of the argument for gay marriage. To wit, the primary argument used by proponents of gay marriage against incestual marriage has been “It’s in the best interests of the children.” However, when that same statement is used to argue against gay marriage, suddenly the children don’t matter, it’s just a matter of being able to love whomever you please. To me, this seems a blatant contradiction, and that was why I brought the issue up. I’m not necessarily accusing anyone on these boards of issuing this contradictory set of arguments, but in every discussion I’ve ever had on the matter, the subject has come up. I thus assumed it would again, and tried to head it off at the pass. If I jumped the gun, I apologize.
Anyway, I think everybody has pretty much made their case on this matter, and no further enlightenment (or changing of minds) seems likely, so I’ll call it a day. Of course, if anyone has any questions I’ll be happy to address them, but otherwise I think this argument has run its course. Cheers,
Jeff
If you can’t prove it, then your argument is based on a personal and subjective moral objection. You can pontificate all you like about tradition, you can sling around words like analysis, you can use ill-defined phrases like ‘best suited,’ and you’ll still be arguing in favor of discrimination, based on nothing but a personal prejudice.
So… you oppose laws in favor of gay marriage because they don’t do you any good? But if they helped you out, you’d be in favor of them? Fascinating. What’s the difference between the two cases?
Oh, and while you’re at it, I asked some time ago about the word ‘marriage’, and why relabeling gay marriage as something else makes all these dire threats that you think will come about if it’s legalized simply disappear. I’d be curious as to how you’d explain that. Legalize ‘gay marriage’ and there’s a threat to society, but legalize ‘gay civil unions’ with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, and everything’s hunky-dory. What kind of problem goes away if you rename it?
Don’t sell yourself short. You’re discussing the issue, so maybe somewhere deep inside you, there’s something that recognizes that you can learn to overcome your personal bias in this issue, in favor of a more compassionat approach. It can be done; I’ve seen it happen. Keep trying!
“What is best for society as a whole” requires a judgment on what exactly defines “best”. As such, an otherwise-impartial analysis is skewed by one’s definition of such, however properly-made.
That is your personal argument. You are as of yet unable to present documentation and/or academic cites (your opinion, unless it is the abstract from your peer-reviewed study, is not an academic cite;)) to back up your statements. As such they are not anything more than your say-so.
What argument do you have that you believe academically supports your conclusions?
How about if the person you consider your spouse (but are unable to legally make that so) is in the hospital and you are similarly denied visitation? This is one of many problems facing homosexuals and homosexual couples because of the current laws regarding their marriage/civil union. Your argument is inherently flawed. NOBODY is saying that “oh, it’s unfair that I’m not allowed to visit my best friend in the hospital”. What IS being said is “I am denied visitation right to my lover/partner on the basis that I am not a family member. The sole reason for that is that gay marriage is not legally recognized in the US.” Thus your analogy is flawed.
Used where? Unless you’re not talking about my post (and you should note that I explicitly stated that I had no dog in that fight and no opinion either way), this is incorrect. What I did state was that there was a high probability that any children of said marriage (and really the marriage is irrelevant, because we’re talking about mating here, not marriage) would have severe issues. I think it is in the best interest of hypothetical children that they not be the product of gametes that are likely to result in severely disabled children, but I’m certainly not going to legislate against that or tell those people they may not procreate.
This is incorrect at best, and intentionally disingenuous at worst. “being able to love whomever you please” is not a valid argument for gay marriage (specifically because it includes things that are not and cannot be described accurately as gay marriage).
It’s not so much a contradiction as it is an extremely poorly-worded assessment/argument. I see now that you have indicated that you thought this argument would be raised. In that sense, no intended harm, no huge foul (to me, anyway:)).
I do not think this is the case unless you have said all you wish to say on the subject of your opinion vs. academic cites:) In that case, I see this as you ceding the point, so you might wanna get back in here:D
And I have questions asterisked above, as you saw in the beginning of my post, so if you could address those I’d be grateful:)
For one thing, the cites that I listed providing evidence that gay couples - even those who consider themselves extremely committed, or have even gone through wedding-type ceremonies - tend to be less mongamous than hetero married couples, even considering monogamy less important than do married couples. This provides for a less-stable environment towards raising children, as it removes stability from the equation. This seems pretty self-evident to me, but if you need me to provide cites that ever-changing mommies and daddies are detrimental to a child’s development, I could hunt some down.
For another thing, a one-man/one-woman couple are superior to either single parents, or same-sex parents in raising a child. This is due to the fact that men and women are inherently different, and both have different strengths. Missing either a mother or a father will deprive a child of some of these strengths, and will thus lead to an inferior environment in which to raised, on average. I don’t have any cites handy here, but I’ll try to grab some and post them later.
Now, many proponents of gay marriage will claim that, with regards to the first item - ie, monogamy - they are non-monogamous precisely because they don’t have the option of marriage. They contend that if they can marry, then the monogamy inherent in the definition of marriage will lead them to conform, and they will thus become more monogamous. Basically, the monogamy of marriage will rub off on them. However, I don’t buy this. For one thing, it’s not the marriage that makes hetero couples more monogamous, it’s the presence of women. For another, our society has historically been tending towards greater sexual openness and freedom, not less. I find it much more plausible that the promiscuousness of gay couples will rub off on marriage as a whole than the other way around. If marriage is redefined to include a lifestyle that doesn’t frown upon promiscuity, then that tacit acceptance of promiscuity will become a de facto part of marriage as a whole.
Therefore, since monogamy is essential to the well-being of the family wrt children, and the well-being of children is the only legitimate reason for the state to have a say in marriage in the first place, it makes no sense for the government to extend the definition of marriage if that extension is going to lead to an overall decline in child welfare.
No. This is one of the many problems facing homosexual couples because of the current rules governing, in this case, hospital visitation rights. It’s not just a matter of what benefits me. I’m married, so from that standpoint, I don’t have a horse in this race. It’s a matter of what best solves the problems in question. The problem, in this case, is not unique to gay couples. It’s a problem for anyone who’s not married, and wants a good friend or relative to be able to visit them in the hospital. Using gay marriage to fix this problem, and a whole host of other problems, just slaps a band-aid on the issue, rather than solving it outright. Yet another argument for more generic civil unions, that grant rights to gay people, but also to anyone else who wants to declare somebody a life-partner, or whatever, be that person a good friend, or a relative, or whomever.
And to answer your question, MrVisible, regarding what’s in a name… It’s all a matter of perception. My biggest concern about legalized gay marriage is the damage that will be done to the institution of marriage if the tendencies of same-sex couples get absorbed into the marriage framework as perceived by the public. If marriage is a separate entity from civil unions, then it will be insulated from whatever customs civil unions themselves develop. Perceptions are quite important, especially when dealing with the nubulous concepts that make up society. It’s the reason that one side yells “Pro-Choice”, while the other yells “Pro-Abortion”. Names matter. And anyway, if the names don’t matter, why should you care whether same-sex unions are called “marriage”, or “civil unions”, or “cottage cheese flambe”?
Jeff
El Jeffe -
Actually it’s not even the only aspect that warrants official recognition. As others have pointed out above, non-family, non-spouse partners don’t have all the same rights that families and spouses do, even if they feel the same obligations. If a gay person’s partner is hospitalized, that person doesn’t have the same rights or responsibilities that the family has. Why shouldn’t they? What about death benefits and insurance? I know some companies have started recognizing homosexual partners for those purposes, but I don’t think it’s common yet.
Personally, I have no problem with anybody marrying anybody, same sex, multiple partners, even close relatives if they want to. I don’t want to do that, but why should anybody be prevented from enjoying all the legal rights and privileges that “traditional” married couples enjoy?
Just because a certain type of relationship has become a general standard in large parts of the world doesn’t mean it’s the only viable relationship, or even necessarily the best. My opinion, the extended family with grandparents and siblings taking part in the raising of children is the best arrangement, and I suspect it’s actually the most common even in the U.S. It just tends to be reduced to “parents” for simplicities sake.
I’m also unconvinced that a male-female parental structure is automatically superior to two same sex parents.
You’re taking a statistic and going much too far, Jeff. You’re reading a statistic about sexual monogamy and taking it as meaning relationship monogamy. Yes, homosexual men on average tend to have more open sexual relationships, in the same way as the heterosexual open marriage, but they don’t exactly drag their tricks into the home life. A lot of heterosexual men and women do the same thing (I believe someone cited statistics on that earlier), with far more drastic consequences. See, in quite a few open homosexual relationships, both partners do establish ground rules between them and do realize that the other partner could sleep around and not violate those rules. It can contribute to honesty and trust in the relationship. Whereas many heterosexuals simply co-opt what society tells them should be the ground rules without really sitting down to see if they’re (a) both on the same page and (b) both in agreement on whether or not they’ll follow those rules. Thus, when someone breaks a rule (cheating, for example), the consequence can be devastating. I’ve found in such relationships that it isn’t cheating which kills them, but rather the subsequent lack of faith. Sometimes they can rebuild, and sometimes they end up a divorce statistic.
Whereas homosexual relationships don’t have so many pre-determined rules, and thus often depend on the expectations of the individuals involved. Some are open. Some are closed. Some are the “if a really hot guy jumps in your bed every once in a while, I promise not to get pissy” sort. So taking the statistic of sexual activity and reading it as relationship instability is often taking a heterosexual conception (cheating = divorce) and applying it where it isn’t true.
No child is ideally going to be placed for adoption with a couple that is unstable or new, regardless of their orientation. If a homosexual couple is over a few years old, odds are pretty good that they’ve confronted the issue and hammered out an agreement that works for them both. Stability within that arrangement would strike me as much more likely than heterosexual couples who haven’t discussed their real feelings, only blown up when one trips over the other one’s opinion of where the line is.
Its MHO that if more couples would discuss this issue, the divorce rate would drop significantly. Marriages make or break on dialogue and trust, two things that mutually agreeable and solid ground rules can only enhance.
Marriage, in origin, is an institution of property rights and making it easy for the state to determine inheritance. Children are only peripherally relevant, being the most common entities who benefit from inheritance.
And, of course, even if one buys the unsupported notion that a married couple is better for children than some other system (given that there are a fair number of studies that show that children grow up considering their family system normal and children raised by gay couples are statistically exactly as neurotic as children raised by straight couples, ‘one’ does not include me), that doesn’t explain why, for example, in Massachusetts gay couples have full adoption rights.
Never mind also that historically, patterns of being raised by parents alone are fairly rare, and children were often looked after by older children, grandparents, miscellaneous other relatives, and an extended family structure.
And never mind that if it’s so important to give a child different role models based on sex (which I think is only supportable if one considers gender more important than humanity), I would argue that it’s just as important if not more so for every child to have a stay-at-home mother and a working woman mother. And a desk jockey father and a hands-on sporty father. Gotta provide children with those good examples of adult life, because they can’t understand what’s possible for men or women without having an example in their immediate family, right?
Not only is it perception, it is ignorant.
Since I moved to Oregon, I have seen many open heterosexual marriages. I have seen more straight couples who have open marriages than any gay couples that I have known.
I don’t know how small your community or world may be, but straight couples aren’t doing the nuclear family thing anymore.
There is a diversity to straight relationships as there are in gay relationships. I think your limited frame of reference is leading you into fallacious arguments.
Just wanted to say I’m reading and I’m fascinated at the semantical hoops people will go through to support their position, regardless of the wrongness of it.
Sometimes, it makes me sad. 
Esprix
Lilairen beat me to it, but I’ll provide some historical documentation (PDF).
Sorry to make you sad, Esprix. What makes me sad is the way it is often easier to demonize someone with an opposing opinon than to merely accept that they may have an opposing opinion. Oppose gay marriage? You hate gay people! Oppose socialized medicine? You hate poor people! Oppose affirmative action? You hate black people!
I may be wrong in the effects gay marriage will have on society as a whole, but it’s not because of some narrow-minded bias against the entire gay population. It’s not because I view gays as second-class citizens, it’s not because I must create “semantical hoops” to justify my bigotry, it’s a difference of opinion based on observations and studies I have seen. There is are legitimate arguments both for and against same-sex marriage that have nothing to do with bigotry, just as there are arguments for and against AA, tax cuts, nationalized health care, and whatnot that have nothing to do with hate and bias. And by refusing to admit that such a debate is even justified - by declaring “Bigot!” everytime someone broaches the subject, the supporters of whatever cause du jour is in question do little to support their positions.
So you can be sad, and disappointed, and disheartened all you please, because frankly, I am, too. And it seems that as long as I am a de facto purveyor of intolerance and hatred because of my opinion, any further discussion is rather pointless. My opinion has been declared wrong by definition, and it’s hard to argue against that. As such, I hereby bow out. I guess by iampunha’s criteria, then, I lose the debate. So be it.
Jeff
See, the thing is that any fool can have an opinion. You have yet to show that yours deserve particular consideration above anyone else’s. You’ve been asked to show all sorts of credible data to support these positions. If you have done that once, I missed it.
Name ONE.
Your position leaves little room for the assertion that someone else does little to support their position. Your half-legged platform can’t stand to have that half-pound added.
In yourself? We agree on something at last!
It is that you are unable to factually support your assertions and premises, and have poorly (if at all) gone on to discount the valid cites brought forth by others, that you are seen as being of feeble mind, point of view and, if nothing else, willfully ignorant.
By the definition that it is insubstantiated by credible evidence, it is an incorrect assessment of valid observations. Is there a definition of “opinion” such that anything anyone believes is objectively valid? If so please do introduce it.
By giving up, I was under the general impression that one loses. I’ll grant that I don’t have a cite handy for that, but I am fairly sure one is unnecessary (that whole “common knowledge” thing is so hard to counter…)
Rather, re: “name one”, obviously there are plenty for same-sex marriage. Name one against
:smack:
I hadn’t even thought about other religions! Of course they might have different and valid views. I guess as a Christian and a Baptist at that, I sort of got tunnel vision there for a minute.
I’m Baptist Union of Western Canada, not SB. Our pastor is of the “Love the person, disagree with the action” school of thought. I’m operating strictly on the verse that says a man lying with another man as with a woman is wrong. No, I can’t remember which one it is! That seems pretty straightforward to me. Arguements and clarification always expected, of course!
I know this is kind of late to reply, but the computer’s been ill this week. It also won’t let me on page two. I’m just gonna post this to kind of clarify my own point of view.
Puh-leese.
You can’t substantiate your narrow views with any facts and are still trying to avoid truth.
You are more comfortable with your intolerance than you are with the thought you might be wrong.
Please return the wood you used for that cross as there is a shortage because of recent wildfires.