Polycarp, I know you meant it sardonically, but: One can’t compare homo-sexuals with Conservative Evangeligal Christians, can one?
The first you’re born with, [like being born black], the second is a belief, which you might easily lose. You can’t lose being a homo-sexual. [You can hide it, yes.]
So; I agree with Reeder’s : “Let’s just stop them from procreating” , but I really can’t see a resemblance between the two.
[Ditto to what The King of Soup said: “Happy New Year, Polycarp. I’ve always enjoyed reading your posts, whether I agreed or not. Here’s to a 2005 full of whatever it is we want it to be full of.”]
[hehehehe, BrotherCadfael]
I won’t argue that point. But cohabitation is much higher, and lots of folks never get married at all. They won’t fall into divorce statistics, since there is no divorce.
I was merely pointing out that a lower divorce rate isn’t necessarily an indication of healthy relationships and marriages. It’s only a part of the picture.
[dons big giant shiny “Devil’s Advocate” hat] Since the purpose of marriage is properly construed to include creating stable long-term families & governing sexual congress, anyone who enters into a marriage merely to “love each other and …commit themselves to each other” should be denied the right to sully the institution of marriage by their vapid “playing house.” Only those who view marriage in a conservative fashion have the right to marry. You take your argument, I’ll take mine, & guess who wins the votes. [doffs big giant shiny “Devil’s Advocate” hat]
OK, seriously. It’s a false comparison. We know what marriage is in this country. Yes, civil marriage. It’s always been defined as corresponding to the traditional species-wide institution of marriage. (Which institution is not exclusive to religious people, let alone any religion, & is, worldwide, generally implicitly between a man & one or more women. Let your brickbats fly, it’s the historic truth.) Civil marriage is not defined by churches, but by the law. And we can clearly recognize the difference between Mr. Cupp marrying Ms. Sausser, & Ms. Sausser marrying Mr. Cupp’s sister. It doesn’t matter if the Cupps & the Saussers are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindu, Buddhists, Raelians, Scientologists, shamanists, agnostics, atheists, Satanists, Asatru, “Other,” or some mix. Totally irrelevant to the law. Is it a heterosexual union between two free & unattached people? Then they can marry. The law doesn’t care what they think that means, God-wise. But it can still tell, “This is a man & a woman, this is a marriage,” “This is two women (& neither even intersex), this is not a marriage.”
You see, there are these organs under your pants, which maybe needs to be explained to you. If this were a society where people were naked much of the time, would the idea even exist?
Ancient oft-naked man (or, perhaps, his gods; Juno Moneta comes to mind) came up with heterosexual marriage as a protected institution. A bunch of sterile homosexual relationships simply weren’t worthy of that sort of legal protection. Nobody worshipped male homosexuality & love between men more than the Athenians. But marriage as a legal institution was, still, there, about women & children. If you haven’t figured out yet that marriage is about the protection of women & children; if you think that it’s about romantic love, & simply a convenience to be conveniently entered & exited with no greater meaning–then you’re a child; what you call marriage is so radically at odds with the history of the idea, that…
…never mind. In an age of marriages that can end in “no-fault” divorce, open marriages, & the irrelevancy of adultery in divorce cases, what’s called marriage is already a sham. Open the floodgates. Let men marry ducks.
If Massachusetts has a higher cohabitation rate than say, Alabama, but a lower divorce rate, it sounds to me that cohabitation is a good idea.
My wife of 22 years and I cohabited for two years before marriage, and for the life of us we can’t begin to understand how a marriage between the two nice gentlemen next door could undermine our relationship, but that’s just us.
That isn’t always the case. Sometimes, you believe something based on your experience. If you believe, for example, that the Statue of Liberty exists because you’ve personally seen it, then to deny its existence would be to deny your own experience. It would be a psychotic decision.
I was wondering how to make that case – people who have had conversion experiences are not operating out of blind faith or whatever pejorative people care to throw at it – and many of them describe their consequent belief as inevitable, not so much chosen as the decision to live out the consequences of the realization from their experience. (And if that doesn’t sound familiar to those involved in this argument, with a few details changed…)
I’m not a Great Bible Scholar but I’m sure it wouldn’t be all that difficult to whup up an argument from the Epistles of St. Paul proving that marriage is immoral and the only true path for ceCs to follow is that of complete celibacy. Bet Diogenes the Cynic could do it right quick. Long as we’re making stupid arguments and all.
I don’t care what two men, or a man and a duck, do in their own bed, so long as they don’t come over and break mine. I do, however, believe the OP argument is flawed. The purpose of government is to legislate morality. Society’s decided that rape, robbery, and murder are immoral, so they’re illegal. CeCs have every right to bring their religion into the legal system, too. I should hope that God’s law or some abstract ethical principal–something–is above the government’s law, that right and wrong don’t depend on what Congress and George Bush, or even the Constitution, say they are. When 19th-century Quakers fought slavery because their religion taught them that we’re all equal before the Inner Light, should slaveholders have told them to keep their Magical Sky Pixie out of the secular dealings of honest businessmen? The key point here, on which everything else depends, is whether homosexuality is moral.
IOW, is the ceC claim that laws should be based on what is moral, or that they are?
Or is the argument that it cannot be shown that ceC couples are damaging marriage by teaching their children to obey their religion, and therefore no other group should be denied marriage?
Actually, the arguments, as opposed to the point, of the OP were almost sham – not quite trollery, but far closer than I’d ever come with serious intent. The point was the role-reversal scenario it established, which is, I believe, a good measure of the validity and ethicality of a stance and its arguments. I used arguments which were reversals of my understanding of the ceC arguments against gay marriage (other than the historical one, which foolsguinea raises). I’m not surprised people think them weak – I do. And it would be trolling to pretend to defend them. It was an exercise in determining whether the ceC position follows the Golden Rule, by establishing a hypothetical case in which they are done unto as they choose to do.
As for the historical argument, I think it’s safe to say that just because something had traditionally been done in a given way, does not make it ethical or moral to continue doing so. Slavery was practiced in widely spread areas with a variety of justifications. For a great part of this country’s history, black people were denied the vote and equal wages for equal work in much if not all of the country. (There are interesting notes here and there on 19th Century Northern discrimination against blacks, which are worth looking at for the person who believes it to be exclusively a “Southern redneck” attitude.) Much of history shows rule by warlords of one form or another. Heck, participatory democracy itself is a rare phenomenon – I believe it’s a 20th Century phenomenon for all adult members of the body politic to have a voice in how they are governed, effectively anywhere (and yes, there are no doubt selected low-population areas that contradict that premise in particular detail – but it’s true as a generalization).
To answer your question, Shodan, my experience with commentary by conservative Christians is that, by and large, they tend to expect that laws be written to conform to their moral standards. (There are exceptions – libertarian conservatives – but again I generalize.) Their attitude is that the present laws are supposed to enforce community moral standards, but fail to do so, and they should, more perfectly than they do. (And I see where inclarity left you wondering.)
As for foolsguinea’s ducks, my reaction has been that gay people have advanced arguments based on their understanding of what equal rights means that are convincing to me, that civil marriage should be extended to include the partnerships that they undertake, for quite similar reasons to those straight couples do. At present I can think of only three talking ducks I’ve seen, two cartoon and one real life. Of the two, one wears a sailor suit, functions as uncle-and-father-surrogate to three ducklings, and is dating a female duck in much the same role; the other is by and large motivated by insane jealousy of a rabbit with major gender-role issues. And the third duck merely tries to sell me supplemental insurance, which I’d prefer buying from weirddave or Aenea than from a duck. No duck has given me sound reasons which lead me to believe it can give mature informed consent to a marital relationship. Nor have children, Sen. Santorum’s dog, etc. But gay people have. Can I found my stance on that premise?
I’ve neglected to respond to grienspace, because I was irritated by his seeming intent (odd for him) to triviate my arguments.
My original definition was:
grienspace pointed out that this was not a complete definition, and I suggested that it was a minimalist definition of a civil marriage, intended to incorporate what is true of all marriages, not to enumerate the meanings of marriage to every couple so joined. I suggested inserting the word “legally” at the beginning of my definition. He complied with this bizarre insertion:
Actually, I’d intended “at the beginning” to result in:
Whatever else it may be and mean to individuals, that gives a working definition of what a court will understand by the term.
grienspace snidely suggests that this is purely a product of “my agenda.” (Obviously, nobody arguing on the other side has any “agenda” – they’re protecting the sanctity of marriage as a civil institution against Dr Matrix and Cajun Man’s efforts to destroy it. (Clearly Britney Spears, Doris Duke, and Porfirio Rubirosa were all fine upstanding supporters of the sanctity of marriage.)
I understand that the OP’s arguments were not seriously put. However…
OK, I will take it as granted for the sake of the argument.
Maybe I am still not getting it.
Do I understand your argument as follows:
[ul][li]ceC couples believe that their opinions of morality are correct.[]Those same ceC couples believe, therefore, that those opinions should be encoded into law.[]They intend to teach their children those opinions. []This is a moral wrong.[]People who commit moral wrongs should not be allowed to marry. []Ergo, ceC couples should not be allowed to marry.[/ul] I believe this is offered as a argument ad absurdum refutation of another argument:[/li]
[ul][li]Gay couples believe that their opinions of morality are correct.[]Those same gay couples believe, therefore, that those opinions should be encoded into law.[]They intend to teach children or other adults those opinions. []This is a moral wrong.[]People who commit moral wrongs should not be allowed to marry. []Ergo, gay couples should not be allowed to marry.[/ul][/li]Is this what you mean?
I’m extremely sorry. If you only knew how highly I regard your character and scholarship you would not feel that way. I must have mistaken the nature of your OP. You did say it was sardonic. I took that to mean you were being sarcastic .
I accepted your challenge for what I saw was playful debate. I’ll be more careful in the future.
And I assumed by the word “triviate” you meant trivialize.
Not many, just that it would seem to me that the right to believe and/or teach others that a certain view of morality is the correct one is guaranteed under the Constitution. Thus I think you can argue against your OP on different grounds than would establish same-sex marriage. I think.
So maybe you do need other arguments.
Is this headed back to the disagreement over whether rights exist already and are recognized, or are established by the states and the people?
Sorry, I am still at work and kind of tired. I will try again in the morning, if I can.
On a related note, did you see the news item where parents who have kids in a Catholic school are ready to riot because the adopted children of a gay couple have been enrolled in the school?
These are the same folks who surely would say that it would be wrong to have an abortion if one got pregnant because one was raped, because the unborn child was “innocent” and one should not hold it against the child that his/her father was a rapist.
But then again, for those folks, the right to life always did end at birth, and if abortion’s not involved, no child is innocent of his/her father’s (or fathers’) “sins.”
Depends on whose morality you’re questioning. The Government’s job is not to decide morality. The Government was put in place to protect our freedom not be the ultimate authority on morality.
Which version of morality is used to decide? Mine? Yours? The Evangelical Christians?
