I think the OP means, “How can you defend opposition to gay marriage on legal grounds?” At least, that’s what I got from the OP when I bothered to actually read it.
Oh, and I could not let this one pass…
You are under a misimpression. A large and loud fraction, maybe the largest single one, of the American population does NOT want to be known as part of a “secular” nation, at all! Heck, that vocal and strong group takes pride whenever they read that the USA has twice or three times the rate of churchgoers-per-population of Western Europe.
Now, the nation-state formally titled The United States of America, is technically “secular” in the sense it constitutionally is impeded from (a) establishment of religion or (b) religious tests for public office. But unlike some other nation-states, the US constitution does not decree a “laicist” state. so, in a reasonably democratic country, if a majority of the voting population, inspired by their religious beliefs, supports Policy X, then it’s gonna be damn hard to keep Policy X from at least partial implementation.
JRDelirious Thank you for the clear explanation now indeed finally answering my question.
So it is in fact a question of educating the public that the word “marriage” does not imply that a religious rite is involved. How do you think they will ever manage to errase that automatic linking from people’s minds?
Why don’t they simply use the words “civil marriage” and “religious marriage” to make the distinction. What on earth do you call then the marriage between atheists?
About your last post:
I can only say that I was ran over by angry members using all sorts of strange sounding language when I and dared to question the “secularity” of the USA, and even more so when I became more specific and started to talk about the US president. (Regarding that hostile defensive attitude things seem to have changed a bit lately. Maybe because one simply can’t ignore the religious influence on the last elections.)
Salaam. A
Though I do not subscribe to the following, I know many who do, so here’s what I’ve learned from them:
Many of you argue the matter like it is equivalent to say blacks achieving rights.
But many do not look at being “gay” the same as being “black” or being “Asian”.
They see gayness as an aberation; as repugnant to them as child molesters.
They cannot equate the standing of being “gay” as a “minority class”.
All else follows from that piece of their “logic”.
Can’t change their minds easily.
Many people used to look upon people in a similar way with regard to the colour of their skin. The matter is exactly equivalent to blacks achieving rights, unless you can demonstrate some reason why it is not beyond the prejudiced ‘logic’ of those who currently argue against.
Because they don’t perceive being black or Asian or a woman as an abberation.
Believe me I 've argued many times with “these people” and what you and I say
does not sink in.
And its hard to argue with them whenever they throw “child molester” at you.
And because the rest of us wouldn’t consider “child molester” a “protected class”, I’ve been told “aha, you see you agree with us - we equate the immorality of the molester with the gay lifestyle”.
I throw up hands in resignation.
Actually, the best approach isn’t resignation, but continuing to present the argument in a reasonable way and letting the younger generation assimilate it, to the point where the people in power will honestly wonder just what all the fuss was about.
That’s not to say anyone should buy the argument that all one has to do to get justice is wait for it. Rather, you should expend your energy where it will do the most good.
Incidentally, I don’t have a dog in this race so arguing with bigots is just entertainment for me.
Yeah, but there’s an important difference in terms of being gay.
Unlike being black, Asian, Hispanic, Catholic, Muslim etc. there is no country, culture, society etc. anywhere on the planet in which being gay is, statistically, the norm (i.e. not in the minority). In other words it isn’t assimilation of any established culture. It can’t help but be seen, pretty much universally, as an aberation to be at worst persecuted or at best only tolerated. Sometimes eventually accepted.
Marriage on the other hand goes hand in hand with long established cultural and religious norms. The two are a very tough (probably impossible) fit.
And in terms of the latest rounds of voting, well, I like to remind the “Get used to it!” crowd that even without allowing marriage, America is still an unbelievable gay-friendly place. In probably over 50% of the rest of the world being openly gay is not only not accepted it is still treated as a capital crime.
Marriage. Or civil marriage.
Oh, they fully understand the simultaneous existence of one and the other, but in the mind of the religious traditionalist, or the philosophical conservative, these are but manifestations of the one same thing. To them, even the atheist who marries before a County Clerk is unwittingly participating in something divinely sanctioned(rel)/naturally evolved(phil) – or is at least being sensible enough to accommodate to the divinely-or-naturally-sanctioned norm of society. Heck, if pushed they’ll even accept that a long-cohabitating M/F couple with no “papers” may yet be acknowledged as a “common law marriage”.
But the task you describe is herculean.
In many people’s minds today, the idea that something called “marriage” (even old-style monogamous M/F) be “merely” a contract about property and inheritance, or “merely” a legal formalization that two people love each other, does not compute. They need it to be something on a “higher plane” than just legal/personal. Even if you set aside specific dogma about allowed/forbidden sexual acts, in their view the legalities of marriage (civil, religious, common-law, de-facto, morganatic, etc) are external forms, its Higher Essence is that of being the source of the condition of Family.
And to the conservatives, part of the Fundamental Substance of that “higher plane” cocept of marriage, in a Platonian sense, is being a Male-Female union. This is normally tied in with Naturalism: that the family is what civilized beings make of the natural process of mating and bearing offspring, which in nature can only happen between males and females. We sometimes challenge them as to how come this does not forbid childless marriages – but when you look at it their way, you can see that in their minds, family originates with childbearing-oriented units, but non-reproducing unions are allowed if the end result is a family unit analogous to the archetype (i.e. a marriage of two elderly chidless people is analogous to the state of a “regular” couple that just got old).
If you add to this, of course, the smaller but still large and vocal number of religiously dogmatic people who believe that anything other than their norm is Sin, and that it is NOT sufficient for them to be righteous while SOMEONE ELSE sins without interferring with them, you can see how it’s a mighty task.
Yes… I would say that in my part of the world there are quite a few running around with a similar mindset.
In my view, when a so called secular society shows such an amazing confusion about such an important issue that effects all levels of society, correct education on this issue can easily be done at school. Don’t you have classes about the basics of Civil Law and its institutions in what you call “highschool”?
Salaam. A
People have been gay, publically, or engaged in homosexual behavior, longer than people have been Christian. Being in a minority only means we should pay closer attention to whether their rights are being infringed.
I think I have come to the conclusion that there is going to be no satisfactory answer. We can keep trying to ask why. We can load our why down with what we believe is incontrovertable logic in favor of SSM and the answer we are going to always get is going to be …
Because
No sane person, gay or hetrosexual (should we use the term ‘sad’ for hetrosexual as the opposite of gay for homosexualy), would be denyed marriage, which is to a person of the opposite gender.
Men and women are reconized as fundenmentally different in the law, look into child custody cases, amoung others, for more info on this.
Don’t see the problem here.
Obviously. Maybe you should read up on it?
originally posted by** kanicbird**
Actually you are wrong here. Gays should not be married to someone of the opposite sex. More than once I have seen the devistation to families when a gay person can no longer live in the closet. It is devistating to the partner and the children and horrible all around.
I suppose there are people who live their whole lives in that kind of marriage. Their spouse must always wonder what s/he is doing wrong.
There were (and in places still are) courses in “civics and citizenship” in the social studies curriculum. But they have mostly drifted into either deconstructive debate with no real principles, or nationalist cheerleading. In any case an American civics and citizenship class, remember what I mentioned earlier, would NOT teach that the society/community must live “secularly”. It would teach at best “Separation of Church and State”, but that the society should still respect majority rule on most issues (after all, if 70% of the voters vote against gay marriage, it matters not if they did so because of religion, or metaphysical philosophy, or to spite the Democrats, or because they got paid, or because they confused it with a tax raise; the mandate’s the same; as long as the statute does NOT explicitly quote the Bible as its justification, it passes).
Besides, you forget by whom are schoolteachers (in 90% of the USA) employed: By local school boards, elected by the voters at the municipal or county level. and often the statewide office in charge of maintaining uniform curricula is itself elected. By the same voters that elect the likes of Bush and Clinton.
Heck, they have enough trouble accepting evolution in the science curriculum.
Sadly, the so-called Religious Right would scream bloody murder at such an attempt-already we have areas where they freak out if it’s even hinted in the schools that homosexuality is anything less than a filthy abomination and that gays are NOT evil perverts that molest little children.
And we are talking about some seriously deluded people-they deny that the US is a secular nation, that we are a CHRISTIAN nation, and that anyways, those who would say otherwise are actually part of a religion they call “secular humanism.”
We can’t even teach proper sexual education in many schools in our nation because of these ignoramuses.
Sad, isn’t it?
Indeed. I havent posted in this forum in ages. Pardon my unpracticed ineptitude.
I believe the foremost legal arguement against gay unions is the “Slippery Slope” arguement, which basically opposes gay unions on the grounds that it will set precedence on other non traditional unions such as bigamy, familial unions, beastial unions, or marrying your neighbors patio furniture. If there can be equal protection among gays to form a “marriage” with a same sex partner, then what would prevent the law from affording the same protection against having multiple partners, in any combination of sexes? If you can go that far, then why cant you legally marry your sister or cousin (outside of Alabama)? And it goes on and on without end. Any nutjob from here to Kalamazoo can cry “Equal Protection under the law!” and force the recognition of their union to whatever the heck they could come up with in their whacked out little world.
I am not sayng or even implying that Gays are wacko nutjobs that need to know their place. All I am saying that legally, if the marriage tradition is set aside to allow same sex unions, there will be no legal impediment to prohibit very imaginative unions.
X~Slayer
Well, hate to break it to you but the US is a Christian nation.
No, there is no ‘state religion’. But so-called American tenets like tolerence, charity, generousity all came from Christianity. They’ve come from other places too, Christianity didn’t invent them. But American values & laws were based on English values & laws. And they were directly based on the Christian religion. The Founding Fathers wanted it to be clear that the Constitution outranks the bible, but it was still almost wholely based on it.
Ya know, the cornball things you learned in grade school, do unto others, love your fellow man etc. We think of them today as secular, just common decency. But they’re not. They’re Judeo-Christian values.
And I’m not a religious person. At all.
Well, the first step on this slope is actually pretty mild (marriage as a legal joining of two consenting adult individuals, regardless of gender), but the subsequent ones are significant. Multipartner arrangements run counter to one very significant aspect of marriage: one (and only one) person can make decisions on your behalf in the event of your death or incapacitating injury. As the baby boomers age and medical technology improves, I suspect we’ll see a steady increase in cases of people spending months or years in palliative care at the ends of their lives, with the spouse empowered to make critical decisions. This factor will, I predict, serve to actively discourage extending marriage/civil unions beyond two people.
The issue of establishing consent will handle the German Shepherd and patio furniture cases.