It also runs along the Sierra mountains, as there is a large conservative streak in the “mountain folk” that doesn’t exist amongst most of us “flatlanders”.
No, I am acting as thought he guy said he has such an argument, as though he agreed on what rational means, both because he did, and then he bails on presenting it in one fell swoop, insisting I have to hear it a drip at a time dragging it out of him.
Because that’s what happened.
Since he won’t present it, I am asking if anyone else might know what it is he is referring to.
Personally, I am entirely confident he has no such argument nor does anyone else, and I would be correct to avoid a time suck by insisting on it all at once, but on the off chance I am wrong, I am willing to double check my certainty 
Just because you disagree with something does not mean that it is not rational. There are many older people I know that think it is irrational to let those “deviants” hold hands in public without being arrested.
I think that by trying to marginalize those you disagree with, you only serve to draw the line in the sand a little darker and deeper.
Be real: you know what the argument against SSM is, you just disagree with it…
No, you can distinguish between rational and irrational arguments.
Irrational: SSM will cause fewer straights to marry.
Rational: Marriage is historically based on producing offspring.
The former is as sensible as saying SSM will cause aliens to attack. There is no factual basis for it and is just panicky fearmongering. The latter actually has some grounding. It argues from a historical standpoint and in doing so ignores the current function of marriage in modern society, but it’s a good deal more rational.
I agree curtailment of religious freedom may not be a completely rational fear. However, I also think that it is possible to understand why someone might reasonably perceive such a thing, and in this thread I was assuming that was at least part of the idea (and why it’s in IMHO instead of GD).
I’m not really saying anyone was particularly surprised. I’m more saying that it (marching on temples) was a) bad manners, even if in their perception the bad manners existed on the other side first, and (perhaps more importantly) b) extremely bad strategy (like I said before, this actually changed people’s minds the *opposite way *).
Yeah, those are two arguments that we hear. Usually they are followed mere seconds later by the polygamy and bestiality arguments. My response to those are that if that is truly what you are afraid of, why not have an initiative that addresses them directly?
Curious, do you think it is a matter that should be put to a vote, or are you satisfied if any of the 3 branches of government where you live, using the checks and balances they are chartered with, addresses the question on your behalf?
Because I also hear, esp. as the tide is turning, that neither the legislative, executive, or judicial branch (depending on the state in question) is representative of the voice of the people. And it looks like Maine is going to put that to the test by forcing a vote where the state government already addressed it.
Of course, but this guy approached me at a public meeting, said he could clear it up with such an argument. Of course I am skeptical to say the least, but as this is real politics, I am not going to not listen, nor am I going to shout down an 85 year old man who is clearly conflicted about his gay son in his waning years as he prepares to meet his maker.
Ha, not Orange County as others said. Central Valley with the exception of Sacramento and its immediate environs. The land of “The Grapes of Wrath”.
That is an old saw, and pseudo-rational. Civil marriage has never required procreation to happen. We marry people without even knowing if they are fertile or not, and in fact, we marry them knowing they are not fertile. there is no prior test to get married, never has been. Anyone that says otherwise is delusional.
Not only that, but we don’t revoke marriage licenses after the fact if progeny are not spawned either. when one gets married, it is not temporary, finalized only when a kid pops out. Never was, never will be. Anyone who claims otherwise is also delusional.
Finally, we don’t require that kids have parents and off them if the parents can’t take care of them or are not around anymore. We find a place for them, at least in theory, and that has always been the case. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional.
Not to say that all three varieties of delusional don’t exist, often in great numbers, and often around here…
I know the first same sex married couple in my county, females both, and they most certainly have kids.
What your associate is really saying is that there should be a religious test - her religion, btw, not anyone else’s - for marriage, it is thinly veiled, and it won’t stop there. A Christian theocracy is what she really would like to have if she had her utter and complete way I bet. Unless she is somehow different form others who have espoused this point of view.
Does she have kids? :dubious:
Actually full faith and credit does not apply to marriages as I understand it. But what does she think about “separate but equal”? Would she be happy with separate facilities for African Americans? No? Then why does she insist on separate facility for people with other arbitrary features such as sexual orientation or fertility?
Sure it can. It is “Separate but equal” all over again. For details, see the marjority opinion in In Re Marriage Cases from the CA Supreme Court. Which was not overridden by the recent ruling on Prop 8’s legality btw, AFICT. Should Prop 8 be overruled by another initiative, by legislation, or by Federal Judiciary, In Re Marriage Cases is still the law of the land.
I bet!
I agree.
Perhaps you can explain why Mormons find it difficult to grasp the concept of a civil marriage separate from a religious marriage?
I was smart enough to understand when I was about 6 years old that you can have either one independent of the other, or both simultaneously, that they are independent entities. Why are there so many Mormons who can’t (or more likely choose not to) grasp this simple concept?
I honestly wonder, no snark, because, although we don’t have many Mormons in this neck of the woods, the trouble here was in fact started by a Mormon politician. Few have any doubt he is pushing a religious agenda, seeking a religious coalition, while trying to couch it in every possible term except that. The fundies who are numerous here are only too happy to go along because they seem to be willing to fail to grasp the same concept because it appears to meet their religious goals too.
What, they are not taught about the Constitution, the First Amendment, the history of America? I knwo Mormons have a particular beef about legislating marriage, but why do they suddenly think it is ok to legislate for others but possibly not for themselves? Why do they fail to grasp the difference between civil and religious marriage? That is the heart of the matter as I see it.
Please. 100 years ago our country was still filling in. There were not nice little towns with churches everywhere. That is the “traditional” view of marriage that people refer to that never really was, or if it was, it was only for an instant in time in a tiny place, and that is hardly traditional. Kids were born and raised in all sorts of harsh environments, and the structure of the local society depended highly on many circumstances, not all of which have anything to do with our “Puritan” heritage. Mormons should know this as well as anyone - they had to travel to some pretty remote and harsh places and make society where there heretofore had been none.
No, the problem here is as above - it smacks of Separate but Equal, and we repudiate that without question as a Nation.
yes, I hear this all the time. But when pressed for details, no one ever has any. Nonetheless, the next initiative to repeal Prop 8 in California has a clause specifically to address this concern. We will see if people put their money where their mouths are and follow through when they say this is the only concern, and there are lots that do say that. I predict they will have other religious reasons, an endless litany of excuses, but I hope I am wrong.
In my mind, if people’s beliefs are so shallow that they feel the mere existence of a protest is reason to abandon what had been support for the rights of people, then their support was weak and poorly reasoned anyway. Better to have them out in the open so they can be reeducated rather than pretending to be sunny day friends.
I can just about guarantee you you are wrong. In fact, before Prop 8, California DID have legal SSM, and nobody was more instrumental in working to undermine that then Mormons, and most of that effort originated from out of state. None of this was necessary if Mormons did not seek to change what had been the status quo simply because they objected to it. No one cried louder in California in protest of the status quo than Mormons.
Of ocurse I disagree with it, and I know what it is. Every version of “it” I have seen has been demonstrably irrational. By that, I mean it has one or more logical fallacies. One of the more common is “Appeal to emotion” but that is hardly the only one. I knwo as we all do, we are talking about a chimera.
If you know of a fallacy free case to be made, I sincerely would like to see it. Or even an argument that is claimed to be fallacy free by the author.
This guy I referred to suggested he has it, and would share with me, but then deigned not to, even though he agreed with me on what “rational and fallacy free” means.
Yet still as far from fallacy-free as it would be to say the sun revolves around the earth. And perhaps ironically, grounded in the same assumptions
Even so, is there a white paper, pamphlet, book, etc. of any length that tries to make the rational and fallacy free case that marriage is traditionally about birthing babies?
I never see it explained, it is always about “traditional values” which is supposed to be understood, perhaps as a shibboleth to identify ingroup and outgroup members, not to build a rational case. But I really really really want to see the best efforts of the best “scholars” in this area.
not_alice, I’m not going to get defensive about my friend. I will say that no, she is not Christian. She does not want a theocracy. I know her extremely well, and I’m confident in saying so. I think it’s exceptionally hasty and dismissive to write opinions off as such unless they invoke the Bible or otherwise reference religion.
I’m a little dubious that you read my post fully. You responded to it as if I hadn’t already acknowledged that her proposal requires radically changing the entire institution of marriage, or that it doesn’t adequately address adoption whether by gays or by straights.
Mind, I strongly disagree with the proposal as something viable and desirable, but my point was that it actually has a rational basis, and while it may be separate but equal, it doesn’t draw the line solely at sexual orientation.
I don;t understand it. I was born in the US, and educated in the American school system just after the Civil Rights era. What am I missing when I think that people are deliberately ignoring basic facts we are all taught, or perhaps they are taught in churches which I don’t attend to ignore them? What is reasonable about the lack of intellectual curiosity that makes someone take a position that demeans others and literally removes legal rights they once had under the guise of religious teachings? That’s what I don’t get - why the need to pick on people less powerful than one’s own group? What do they get out of it?
Really? Mormons are lecturing people on manners in a matter of civic debate? What are the manners when the Prophet encourages followers to use their time and money to overturn a law in a far away state (for most of them anyway)?
I doubt anyone’s mind is really changed. I have heard that locally here - that the protests have changed peoples minds - I have heard this from friends who dumped me that they would vote otherwise now. I am not really sure I believe them when they say they voted for Prop 8, and regardless how they feel about me bringing protest to this small town, I think they will do the right thing when it is only them, their conscience, and their ballot the next time.
This is a long haul, thanks to Mormons, it may take years or even decades longer nationally than it would have had they left California to its own devices, but the final outcome is a foregone conclusion. As Americans, when we have disputes over civil rights, we have solved them by expanding the rights of those who have less, not by contracting them.
One way to solve this issue is to find the best arguments if any that the anti-SSM side makes. There must be some in that very large group that show some intellectual curiosity and have tried to make a compelling case, right? Or did millions in CA alone simply vote without even a hint that there was a strong rational, non-religious case to be made in this entirely secular matter? Are we as a country really that gullible right now?
[quote=“Bosstone, post:29, topic:502134”]
not_alice, I’m not going to get defensive about my friend. I will say that no, she is not Christian. She does not want a theocracy.
[quote]
I understand. This is not about her. Her position is not uncommon, and to my original point, it is a irrational position in that it is full of fallacies masquerading as rational. One representative position in a large set of other ones I might add.
Maybe she doesn’t want a theocracy, but she is making the same argument that others make who do in fact wish to embed non-secular beliefs of one religion (or religion-group) into our secular laws, and I don’t get why all Americans don’t object to that - it is the core of our societal beliefs that we simply don’t do that.
They do, daily here. The exact same argument except with Bible references. simply removing the Bible references and calling it non-religious is not going to fly in the larger scheme of things. Maybe she is not aware of the genesis of her position, or the way others who share it justify it, and maybe if she were, she would be horrified.
What I don’t get though is why anyone would not see it as immediately counter to the “Separate but Equal” prohibitions. In my experience, only a “higher law from God” has been invoked to make the rest of the case you mentioned. I don’t know if your friend would go that far, but I wonder what she would do to justify “separate but equal” in this case, but not others. Unless, you know, she objects to the doctrine to begin with, again I don’t know her, so I can’t say, but I have heard that too here, there apparently was a long and active KKK history here, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there still is although I don’t know for sure. The seething hate against many groups is barely contained under the uneducated surface here.
I read it fully. It is countered, no matter how complex or well thought out it is, by noting that it proposes a “separate but equal” regime and a new legal regime that is not really practical to straighten out. It was all addressed in the Majority Opinion of In Re Marriage Cases, if you want the details better than I can provide them here
OK, I guess I don’t get the “rational basis”? You don’t have to dig deep, or even at all, before the fallacies start jumping out. How can anyone accept such a proposition except on some sort of faith (not necessarily theistic faith, but still…)
I am pretty sure it does. If you get married in California you are deemed married in all other 49-states. You need not do anything when moving to or traveling in other states to establish you are legally married.
Its application to SSM is worrisome to many as it seems hard to disallow it for SSM but remain consistent with the law.
Not true.
I have friends who are legally married in California, in a SSM, having been grandfathered in by virtue of having gotten married between June and November last year.
But they are most certainly not married in most, and maybe any other states. And they are not married in a Federal sense either. Their rights and obligations are entirely different from, e.g., my sister and her husband on both a state and a federal level.
Even in California, as it stands now, should these couples get divorced, or should one partner die, no one will be free to enter into a same sex marriage again in California.
As for marriage licenses, they have always been subject to “public policy exceptions” to FF&C by my research. Not time to dig deep right now, but here is a start: http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm
That’s due to DOMA. But you’re missing the point greatly. My reference to FF&C was pointing out why civil unions are not a good substitute for marriage, regardless of the genders of those involved. FF&C covers marriages, but not civil unions. Clearer?
As regards SSM I don’t disagree. Thing is, to my knowledge, there has been no court case to decide this on a Full Faith & Credit argument so it is more appropriate to say it is in limbo. Why a case on this or Equal Protection (and I want to say there is a Due Process argument as well) have not occurred as regards SSM I don’t know.
Remember though that your constitutional rights are not absolute. You have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to slander. You have a right to own a gun (bear arms) but do not have a right to anti-aircraft missiles. So, if you get married (the recognized kind today between an adult, consenting, heterosexual couple) in one state and the next state over says they do not deem you married you’d have a great FF&C case on your hands. The other state would have to explain to the court why it is appropriate for them to not recognize your marriage in the face of the FF&C which puts the burden on them to come up with a good excuse.
Note the Federal courts overturned Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex couples adopting based on FF&C. If you adopted in another state as a same-sex couple and moved to Oklahoma then Oklahoma said you are no longer legal parents of that child. FF&C says no to that. You legally adopted elsewhere you remain the parents. (Finstuen v. Crutcher) <– PDF
Sure, it is clear, but still wrong. States are free to set the terms of who may get married and under what circumstances free of FF & C. Trust me, to guys who got married in MA legally today are not going to move to , eg. AL or even CA and expect their marriage to be recognized. FF & C does not apply. Please read the link I provided above for why and for how long this has been the case.
My understanding is quite different. Almost since Ratification, states have been free to recognize or not licenses issued by other states. See the link I provided.
And of course, this is the case currently, no one married in MA in a SSM can expect to transfer to most other states and receive marriage rights and obligations just because MA decided to issue a license.
My understanding is that this is long settled law and hence not really a productive avenue for change.
Okay, umm… I think I made clear that I do not see any “fallacy-free” pro-Prop-8 arguments, and simply offered some where I (at least) understand where the pro-Prop-8’er is coming from, even if it is not fallacy-free. But apparently that is NOT what you are looking for?
Let me just ask for clarification for starters: do you really not believe that in the absence of reliable, widely-available birth control, there needs to be some social mechanism that (at least to some degree-- I know it’s not perfect) protects pregnant women and the resulting children? And that marriage, for hundreds/thousands of years, functioned as this social mechanism? (And not just in the US in the 1800’s, either, or even just in Christian countries.)
I’m not saying it’s a good or non-fallacious argument against SSM. In fact, I think I tried to make clear that I actually do NOT think it is a good argument now, and the reason why not.
I will think more about civil vs. religious marriage. My first inclination is to say that people seem to get caught up in the word marriage (on both sides), and that I don’t really understand why.
On an issue like this, the line should be drawn deep, and then set on fire. This is about fairness versus bigotry; good versus evil. This is not something where compromise is desirable, or where the other side deserves respect. People who oppose SSM deserve to be treated with the same attitude as someone who supports segregation.
Yes, we are. Opposition to SSM is ALL about bigotry, ( religious and otherwise ) and nothing else.
As soon as I posted, I realized what the issue is. In the US, the line between civil and religious marriage is blurred in a way that is true for no other institution, because a religious leader can perform a legal binding marriage. Heck, I know someone who went online to get a religious diploma so he could marry two of his friends (though he was not actually religious). As long as this is true, this makes it easy to ignore the demarcation between civil and religious marriage, whereas (for example) one couldn’t ignore the difference between a legal notarized document and a “church-notarized” document, because one is legal and the other isn’t.
As you may have been implying in your post, we could perhaps solve all this by decreeing that religious entities are no longer able to civilly marry people (only civil entities could). Of course, religions would scream bloody murder at that for a while, but after the dust settled I bet it would be a lot easier to separate the two.