sorry; wrong thread.
Last time I checked, our government was secular, and they’ve been in the marriage business since the beginning.
Whatever religious connotations it had before is GONE. Dead as a doornail for all practical purposes. The original religious concepts of marriage didn’t permit the easy divorces we allow now, or “pre nups” for that matter, which are allowed now.
There is precisely zero reason to change “marriage” back to its exclusively religious meaning. You’d end up with countless numbers of pissed off atheist couples who’d feel shortchanged that their “marriage” is now merely a “civil union”.
Polycarp
I think that this brings up an important point, on which deserves a separate post (and quite possibly a separate thread).
While there are marriages in which children are not the core constituent, the formalization of familial relations, of which child rearing is an integral part, is the foundation of marriage as a general concept. Marriage was not created as a way to declare someone to be your best friend. Or to declare that you find someone to be incredibly hot.
To ask that the issue of polygamy be tabled misses, in my mind, the central issue. Through thousands of years of history, traditions have built up. One of those is marriage. And traditionally, marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason we give special status to the union between man and woman is tradition. Now there is a movement to give special status to same sex unions. But once we allow same-sex unions, tradition is no longer a reason. So on what basis should we give special status to pair-bonding? Stop and think about this for a moment. It is being suggested that we created an institution, call it civil union, marriage, Shirley, whatever, in which two people declare themselves to be pair-bonded, and that this relationship is separate and distinct from all of their other relationships. Try to imagine that you had never heard of marriage. Imagine that, in a complete absence of anything remotely resembling a precedent, someone had suggested that we allow everyone in society to pair up, with each pair having duties and privlidges both between themselves, and in relation to society. Wouldn’t that strike you as rather bizarre? And if someone else said “Why two? Why not more?” and the response was “Let’s table that for now and just consider two”, wouldn’t you think that the issue of why two is a crucial issue?
What exactly is marriage if not an institution based on tradition? Is it simply legally recognized friendship?
If your wife had been a man, would you have married her/him? Is sexual attraction a necessary part of a marriage? If two straight men find that they can form only superficial relationships with women based on nothing more than sexual attraction, but find that they have a deep spirtual connection with each other, would it be proper for them to marry each other, and have flings on the side? What if a gay man and a lesbian have a similar relationship?
If marriage is religious and not secular, remove ‘marriage’ from the realm of secular. That way, traditionalists such as I are happy, and no one is the victim of invidious distinctions.
[/quote]
Bricker, your argument is contradictory. It has been firmly established tradition in this country that marriage is a secular legal status with no religious tests of requirements neccesary.
For all this talk of “tradition”, you would undo hundreds of years of tradition in the sake of “tradition” and alter the definition of marriage by removing its legal meaning.
Yadda Yadda Yadda
Any argument based on tradition is so much hot air and bullshit. Tradition is legally moot, so if that’s the extent of your defense, you’re beaten.
Move on or give it up.
That’s irrelevant.
No, because the decision as to whether or not to allow them to marry the person they “love” is not decided on the basis of their orientation, but the sex of the person they “love”. Granted, the sex of the person they “love” is determined by their orientation, but that is not relevant. It’s like that saying about the Model T: “You can have any color you like, as long as it’s black.” Apparently you would reword as “People are allowed or disallowed to have the color they want based on whether they want black. People who don’t like black are being discriminated against!”, when the most accurate statement would to simply say “Black is the only available color”.
The policy in question limits marriage to opposite sex couples. The determination to allow a marriage or not is made on the basis of the sex of the people involved, not their orientation. Your wording is an attempt to twist the situation around to make in seem like discrimination.
You should ask Scylla, since he’s the one that brought it up.
This is classic:
I’m keeping this one.
Flip the terms: We have allowed marriage for people who loved each other for, well, forever. Conversley, there is no tradition for, e.g., <i>Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?</i>. Why is gender the issue of tradition all of a sudden?
Not relevant? Do you have any clue as to how formal logic works? You’re saying that A is based on B, and B is based on C, but A has nothing to do with C. That is patently false on every possible level.
Well, it is discrimination, plain an simple. You can twist wording and come up with inappropriate analogies all day, but the fact remains that privilege of marriage is withheld from people who want to marry someone of the same sex, and it is withheld for no particular reason other than tradition.
Your argument seems to be very similar to “Gay people can get married to the opposite sex just like everyone else, so they’re not being discriminated against”. But the whole point of marriage is to be able to marry someone whom you have fallen in love with. The fact that marriage has been, up until this point, confined to members of the opposite sex is simply a byproduct of past attitudes in regards to homosexuality.
Thus, the reason that marriage exists is completely in line with homosexual marriage. Anyone who wishes to deny homosexuals the option of marrying is doing so based on how marriage has been practiced in the past, and not on what marriage actually is.
It’s time to break with this tradition that flies in the face of the actual concept of marriage, and grant homosexuals the same privileges as heterosexuals.
The social functions of marriage are two: the establishment of a family (to which I will come back) and the social recognition of a commitment by which each of two parties endows the other with numerous rights vis-à-vis him/herself because he/she has fallen in love with him/her and desires to turn that love into a lifelong commitment. If it were merely a matter of a private legal contract, that could be circumvented by allowing private legal contracts between whomever wants to undertake a “marriage contract.” But it’s a bit more than that – it’s the formalization of a relationship with specific impedances on future behavior and the irrevocable committing of resources to the other. And it is undertaken out of love.
The second function, as I said, is the creation of a family. But what is a “family” but a household living together in love – a couple which loves each other, and any children that they may come to be in loco parentis to. Whether they got those children by sexual intercourse, in vitro fertilization, adoption, foster parentage, or the bequeathal of custody by a deceased blood parent (“My husband having died, if I should die before Joshua turns 18, I name my beloved sister Ruth and her husband George as his guardians.”). And all but the first method named are available to a gay couple on the same terms as a straight one, unless prohibited by law.
Sex is a normal element of a marriage, as are children. But it is love, not sex, that makes a marriage. My aunt married at the age of 65, to a cousin who had lived with her and her parents since he turned 18. They loved each other deeply. But his purpose in marrying her, made clear to anyone concerned, was that she should receive a widow’s pension from his retirement, since he drew a good pension but his estate other than that pension was fairly small. I have no clue whether they had sexual relations, and no desire to know (I suspect they did, but it was none of my business). But I do know that they loved each other and that his wish to provide for her, out of love, was the principal reason behind the marriage.
My wife and I had no children of our joint bodies, for medical reasons detailed in other threads. But we took in three boys who filled the role, and have several honorary grandchildren in consequence. And our mutual support of each other has brought us both through some bad times. We love each other deeply.
There are any number of books by gay people who have “married” in the sense of committing to another and who have, with their partners, adopted kids. Dan Savage’s The Kid is, I’m told, excellent in this regard.
In what way are they not a family? In what way is their commitment to each other different than my wife’s and mine, or Scylla’s and his wife?
What do you think stare decisis is?
It’s also been firmly established that marriage is between a man and a woman. I’m suggesting a change in tradition, yes - but so are proponents of same-sex legal unions. At least my proposal has a slim chance of passage in our generation.
- Rick
I think you underestimate how quickly attitudes will change.
That being said, I’d have to grudgingly sign on the bandwagon of “civil unions” for gays.
For one thing, I’d think the little experiment of keeping separate terms for what would be the same status will fail. Gays and the public at large will still refer to them as “marriages”, regardless of what the little piece of paper they signed says.
Oooh, a toughie. A loaded question. I don’t mind. Loaded questions are a fair way to explore extremes.
Well, if I was Lorenzo Lamas as Renegade I would crash through the window of the senate in my big bad Harley, pull out my shotgun and make a speech about what is right. Then everybody would nod soberly and agree with me, or I shoot them with my shotgun.
I take it this is not what you’re after. You want a real world answer.
OK.
In the 11th hour, facing no alternatives, I would capitulate and choose the lesser evil.
But, there’s a big however.
I would not start from the position of accepting the lesser of two evils. It would be my final alternative.
I truly don’t understand why you are starting from final alternatives.
I would think that it would be highly important to fight every step of the way and give as little ground as possible to people who are simply seeking a way to justify their bigotry.
If there was a rational reason why gay marriage was dangerous or damaging, if there was a reasonable argument that could be made in good faith against it, I would seek a compromise that mitigates the damaging aspects of it.
If gay marriage was going to destroy the nation. If it was going to ruin marriage for everybody else and cause a catastrophe… If these things were a rational possibility, then I would be against it.
And I would hope most gay people would say “well, sure we want to have the choice of marriage, but we weren’t aware it would destroy the world so ummm, nevermind.”
I would expect them to say that, and I would thrust that upon them if it were necessary.
But. It’s not.
Consider then, that this is not a gay world. Our society is not designed for gay people. In order to live within it they have to be willing to compromise. And, they do.
I think it is rational to expect that they compromise and do not promote their interests over the interests of society in general. It’s rational because they are a minority.
A gay person living in the society owes it to the society to live within it and compromise in a rational way.
By imposing that expectation we accrue the responsibility to be sure that we only expect necessary compromise.
Because we expect gay people to respect and advocate a society which is not designed for them, we incur the moral responsibility to advocate their interests.
More importantly, it becomes a screaming imperative that we do so when those interests in no way whatsoever conflict with the interests of society.
Modern society is built around the interests of heterosexuals and families. Gay people must live within it, and I thank them for the compromises they make in doings so.
It would seem to me that including them as married couples and as families, on every level actually serves my interests as a heterosexual.
If gay people wish to adopt a model that brings them more into alignment with the tradittional values of society thus eliminating conflict and the need for compromise, by what insane reasoning do I fight against it?
There can be only one reason:
I don’t want gay people included in my society.
I don’t think that’s a stance I want to start off compromising with.
It’s this simple: I demand gobear’s respect and consideration.
It is hard for me to make that demand if I’m demeaning him.
Ooooh, burn!
Because, like a chess master, I can see the moves eleven or twelve ahead in this instance. I make no claims to general prescience, but on this issue, I’m confident my Spassky-like vision is correct: the public will not accept gay marriage in this generation.
That said, the question becomes whether or not advocates for some change are seen as reasonable and approachable, or as extremists. In this regard, Senator Scylla, I believe you’d gain more allies to your cause if, from the beginning, you championed a cause that was ultimately workable.
I agree that the movies don’t auger this course of action. The big speech about what’s right carries the day. Jimmy Stewart’s solo filibuster works. Lisa Simpson’s speech brings about justice. Lorenzo Lamas and his shotgun save the day.
But as you correctly inferred, I want a real-world course of action. And this is that real-world course. We still live in a society that wrongly denies basic civil rights to some of its members. I agree that should change. But I fear that the attempt to force sweeping change too quickly dooms the effort from the start.
That’s not always true. Stonewall was not about quiet work within the system. Neither were the Montgomery bus boycotts, for that matter. But I am convinced that for this issue, which requires public as well as legislative support, insistance on the whole enchilada will garner you only an empty plate.
Given your affinity with Lorenzo, I understand how, and why, you disagree. Perhaps I’m wrong, after all.
But I am certain I’m not.
- Rick
Because, like a chess master, I can see the moves eleven or twelve ahead in this instance. I make no claims to general prescience, but on this issue, I’m confident my Spassky-like vision is correct: the public will not accept gay marriage in this generation.
That said, the question becomes whether or not advocates for some change are seen as reasonable and approachable, or as extremists. In this regard, Senator Scylla, I believe you’d gain more allies to your cause if, from the beginning, you championed a cause that was ultimately workable.
I agree that the movies don’t auger this course of action. The big speech about what’s right carries the day. Jimmy Stewart’s solo filibuster works. Lisa Simpson’s speech brings about justice. Lorenzo Lamas and his shotgun save the day.
But as you correctly inferred, I want a real-world course of action. And this is that real-world course. We still live in a society that wrongly denies basic civil rights to some of its members. I agree that should change. But I fear that the attempt to force sweeping change too quickly dooms the effort from the start.
That’s not always true. Stonewall was not about quiet work within the system. Neither were the Montgomery bus boycotts, for that matter. But I am convinced that for this issue, which requires public as well as legislative support, insistance on the whole enchilada will garner you only an empty plate.
Given your affinity with Lorenzo, I understand how, and why, you disagree. Perhaps I’m wrong, after all.
But I am certain I’m not.
- Rick
Bricker, you are the voice of the devil. Just so you know.
I’m not sure I understand what this means. Would you mind explaining it?
Joe Random
I’m not saying that A has nothing to do with C. I am quite familiar with formal logic, so familiar in fact that I recognize that no syllogism has been presented for a case of discrimination.
You said:
Doesn’t “A is not relevant to C” mean the same thing as “A has nothing to do with C”?
I feel like I’m talking to a wall. I’ve made several pertinent points in my last post, most of which you seem to have completely ignored. I’ll try again:
The purpose of marriage is to formalize the union between two people. I’m sure that we can both agree with that.
Currently, unions between people of the same sex are ineligible for this formalization process. Further, no reasonable explanation for why this is the case has been presented.
So, we have a practice (the formalization of a union between two people) that is denied based on the relative sex of the person one wishes to form a union with. The relative sex of the person one wishes to form a union with is determined by sexual orientation. Therefore, whether one is allowed or denied the option to formalize a union with the person that they want to form a union with is based on the sexual orientation of the parties involved.
Please explain to me how denying a person the option to formalize their union with another person based, ultimately, on their sexual orientation can be anything but discrimination against people with a certain sexual orientation.