Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

04/21/2009 01:42:50 PM · #2476

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Melethia:
I generally don't have a problem sitting in a room full of people who totally disagree with me. Probably because I'm a wimp, but mostly because I don't feel the need to persuade them to "see" or accept my side of the issue. This actually happens to me from time to time because the majority of the people I work with do not hold the same political views I do. I can remain steadfast to my convictions without engaging in an argument I'm quite sure I cannot "win". Nor do I see the value in engaging. I do not feel my opinions are superior - just different. I have a lot of respect for some of the folks I know who hold very differing opinions. My parents, for instance.

Don't worry Deb. I think you are a great person even if you aren't like the jackals here. ;) You cause some conviction with your statement because I can certainly be guilty of "the need to persuade them to "see" or accept my side of the issue". Whoa. Right between the eyes. ;) That is one of my many shortcomings and it probably stems from pride (not probably, I'm sure it does).

OTOH, I do see value in engaging. It allows for civil discourse and you never know when someone says something that suddenly resonates with you.

I will engage in civil discourse. Sometimes it's a little one-sided, in that I do all of the listening. I guess I try to judge my audience in that respect. I can't fault you for engaging and persisting. You obviously have very strong beliefs. Though I can't help but think you want some sort of validation by convincing others that your beliefs are the "right" ones and should be adopted, sometimes.

Oddly, I can see both sides of the issue very easily from an opinion standpoint, and fully support the right to hold and express those opinions. My personal issue comes with legislating "opinions" to deny rights when there is no party to be injured. The arguments and protestations can go back and forth, but until someone can conclusively convince me that letting two guys or two gals share a lifelong commitment and all the legal rights we confer upon married or civil unioned male/female couples, I just can't see why it shouldn't be allowed. More specifically, I can't see why it should be disallowed.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/21/2009 01:49:48 PM · #2477

Originally posted by Melethia:

The arguments and protestations can go back and forth, but until someone can conclusively convince me that letting two guys or two gals share a lifelong commitment and all the legal rights we confer upon married or civil unioned male/female couples, I just can't see why it shouldn't be allowed. More specifically, I can't see why it should be disallowed.

Well, for a person who says they are lousy at this, you sure are good at it.

That is the important question, who is hurt by this action (gay marriage, or banning gay marriage), and does that hurt rise to the point where the rights of others ought to be curtailed by legislation? Is the balance one way or another clear enough that there ought to be a law?

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

04/21/2009 01:50:51 PM · #2478

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
Ok so I missed a lot of this and I'm now catching up. Doc, as far as the Miss California stuff... I find it pretty irrelevant and a distraction to the real conversation.

Why is that? It was a real world example of the exact conversation we're having here played out on a national stage with responses from all sides for us to see. If that isn't relevant, then what is?

I think your other statements are valid. I do like to think that I can divorce the action from the person.

Well

BrennanOB's response actually brought it nicely back around into the conversation.

I guess I didn't realize what a big deal that was. I have no TV and don't listen to the radio so I didn't realize there was a national audience on this one statement made by a pageant contestant. It seemed a silly example stand alone but I guess with context it makes more sense.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/21/2009 02:01:15 PM · #2479

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

who is hurt by this action (gay marriage, or banning gay marriage), and does that hurt rise to the point where the rights of others ought to be curtailed by legislation?

Indeed, is the "right" of two people to declare their commitment to each other outweighed by the "right" of another group to invalidate their marriage on the basis of sex, age, the color of their skin, etc.? Only one of those actually deprives a group from their beliefs.

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

04/21/2009 02:07:18 PM · #2480

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
who is hurt by this action (gay marriage, or banning gay marriage), and does that hurt rise to the point where the rights of others ought to be curtailed by legislation?

Indeed, is the "right" of two people to declare their commitment to each other outweighed by the "right" of another group to invalidate their marriage on the basis of sex, age, the color of their skin, etc.? Only one of those actually deprives a group from their beliefs.

What! You mean getting angry that you getting rights deprives me of my right to deprive your rights isn't logical?

Pssh. WHAT is the world coming to?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/21/2009 02:12:57 PM · #2481

Originally posted by scalvert:

Interesting point: we actually DO restrict marriage (and other things, like drinking and driving and sexual activity) by age... I presume you defend that "discrimination", Shannon? (This doesn't "prove" anything except that that particular example doesn't belong in your list, btw...)

R.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/21/2009 02:18:20 PM · #2482

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

we actually DO restrict marriage (and other things, like drinking and driving and sexual activity) by age...

TouchÃ©, however we don't do it for full citizens. There's a three-year gap in the case of drinking, again a product of social norms, but note that 50 years go you could add skin color to that list.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/21/2009 02:22:20 PM · #2483

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
we actually DO restrict marriage (and other things, like drinking and driving and sexual activity) by age...

TouchÃ©, however we don't do it for full citizens. There's a three-year gap in the case of drinking, again a product of social norms, but note that 50 years go you could add skin color to that list.

Children aren't "full citizens"? I'm not sure what that means. They can't vote until they reach 18? I'm not sure "full citizen" is the right way to describe this. By this standard, a felon is not a full citizen either, since he can't vote... Not being difficult, just questioning the terminology.

R.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/21/2009 02:23:33 PM · #2484

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Indeed, is the "right" of two people to declare their commitment to each other outweighed by the "right" of another group to invalidate their marriage on the basis of sex, age, the color of their skin, etc.? Only one of those actually deprives a group from their beliefs.

Interesting point: we actually DO restrict marriage (and other things, like drinking and driving and sexual activity) by age... I presume you defend that "discrimination", Shannon? (This doesn't "prove" anything except that that particular example doesn't belong in your list, btw...)

R.

Yes, but those restrictions are applied equally to all members of the affected class.

I have no problems with limiting "marriage" to any two consenting, competent, unrelated (genetic limits TBD), unmarried citizens. No incest, no polygamy (or polyandry, for that matter), no pedophilia required to apply the existing law/definition equally to all qualified citizens, as indeed the California (and now Iowa) Supreme Court held should be the case.

It's once you start dividing the rights of that class on the basis of gender you enter forbidden territory, constitutionally ...

04/21/2009 02:24:58 PM · #2485

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Melethia:
The arguments and protestations can go back and forth, but until someone can conclusively convince me that letting two guys or two gals share a lifelong commitment and all the legal rights we confer upon married or civil unioned male/female couples, I just can't see why it shouldn't be allowed. More specifically, I can't see why it should be disallowed.

Well, for a person who says they are lousy at this, you sure are good at it.

That is the important question, who is hurt by this action (gay marriage, or banning gay marriage), and does that hurt rise to the point where the rights of others ought to be curtailed by legislation? Is the balance one way or another clear enough that there ought to be a law?

This may take the conversation to a place I haven't been before, but I suspect there are a lot of people who fear it's a slippery slope. They don't agree with gay marriage, but they are, on some level, willing to let them have their way. However, they then worry that down the line someone is going to say, "you know, I've always loved St Patrick's Cathedral. I want to get married there." and then sue the church because they do not allow what is accepted everywhere else. What then? I think that is a very real fear and I don't think it's a completely irrational one.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/21/2009 02:28:14 PM · #2486

Originally posted by scalvert:

You say "two people" like its a magic number, and it is in our society, but in Mormon and Muslim cultures it is not. These folks have no issue with polygamy. They may like it but we as a society say it is illegal. These polygamists are consenting adults who wish to enter into a compact that our laws say they don't have the right to enter into, and I for one am OK with that limitation. On the other hand I don't see the advantage to a ban on gay marriage, but to say one of these cases is black and the other is white overstates the case. I know this is a digital web site, but these are shades of gray. If you don't see that gay marriage shifts the notion of marriage somewhat then one of us is missing something.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/21/2009 02:29:53 PM · #2487

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

However, they then worry that down the line someone is going to say, "you know, I've always loved St Patrick's Cathedral. I want to get married there." and then sue the church because they do not allow what is accepted everywhere else. What then? I think that is a very real fear and I don't think it's a completely irrational one.

If they only perform ceremonies for their own congregation, then no problem (until their gay members want a ceremony!).

If they rent the facility out to the general public for ceremonies officiated by others, then their tax-exempt status requires they treat all such parties non-discriminatorily. They can probably forgo the tax exemption, pay taxes on the income like any other landlord, and "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/21/2009 02:33:52 PM · #2488

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Indeed, is the "right" of two people to declare their commitment to each other outweighed by the "right" of another group to invalidate their marriage on the basis of sex, age, the color of their skin, etc.? Only one of those actually deprives a group from their beliefs.

You say "two people" like its a magic number, and it is in our society, but in Mormon and Muslim cultures it is not. These folks have no issue with polygamy.

The restriction on plural marriage can be applied equally to all citizens, the ban on gender-neutral marriageâ�¢ cannot.

This is not a question of whether the state has the power to restrict the activities of citizens, only but whether those restrictions can be different based solely on the gender of the parties involved.

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/21/2009 02:36:37 PM · #2489

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Melethia:
The arguments and protestations can go back and forth, but until someone can conclusively convince me that letting two guys or two gals share a lifelong commitment and all the legal rights we confer upon married or civil unioned male/female couples, I just can't see why it shouldn't be allowed. More specifically, I can't see why it should be disallowed.

Well, for a person who says they are lousy at this, you sure are good at it.

That is the important question, who is hurt by this action (gay marriage, or banning gay marriage), and does that hurt rise to the point where the rights of others ought to be curtailed by legislation? Is the balance one way or another clear enough that there ought to be a law?

This may take the conversation to a place I haven't been before, but I suspect there are a lot of people who fear it's a slippery slope. They don't agree with gay marriage, but they are, on some level, willing to let them have their way. However, they then worry that down the line someone is going to say, "you know, I've always loved St Patrick's Cathedral. I want to get married there." and then sue the church because they do not allow what is accepted everywhere else. What then? I think that is a very real fear and I don't think it's a completely irrational one.

So keep their rights restricted so the churches don't have to answer to their discrimination? I don't think suing is the answer by any means. I think Americans are sue happy and its ruining a lot of good things.

But to me this argument IS completely irrational. It's like saying... well I dunno if we should give civil rights to blacks cus pretty soon they are gunna think it's ok to demand equality, and then where does that leave all of us that treat them unequaly? No, better let things stay as they are so we can keep on being racist and not have to answer to anyone about it.

God forbid.

04/21/2009 02:38:31 PM · #2490

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Polygamists are not a protected minority group subject to discrimination, but it's an excellent example of relative social values. Perhaps that will be the next taboo to fall. Polygamy laws are probably intended to protect multiple spouses from unequal treatment (and as a matter of practicality for the government). Beyond that, where is the harm?

04/21/2009 02:41:56 PM · #2491

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I suspect there are a lot of people who fear it's a slippery slope. They don't agree with gay marriage, but they are, on some level, willing to let them have their way. However, they then worry that down the line someone is going to say, "you know, I've always loved St Patrick's Cathedral. I want to get married there." and then sue the church because they do not allow what is accepted everywhere else. What then? I think that is a very real fear and I don't think it's a completely irrational one.

The slippery slope argument is always a bad one. I was taught to argue the points at hand, not to look down some imagined hallway and say "look where we might end up".

At any rate your hypothetical is silly. St. Patrick's is only allowed to marry Catholics who are confirmed. It will not allow gay marriages, Jewish marriages, Seventh Day Adventist marriages or rock concerts. On the other hand if you are renting out a facilities hall for any members of the public who have the coin, but you find gay marriage wrong and don't want to see them in your hall, you will be in trouble when you decide to refuse to rent your space to them, just as any landlord who dosen't like to rent to certain races tend to end up in trouble.

04/21/2009 02:59:06 PM · #2492

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
You say "two people" like its a magic number, and it is in our society, but in Mormon and Muslim cultures it is not. These folks have no issue with polygamy. They may like it but we as a society say it is illegal.

Polygamists are not a protected minority group subject to discrimination, but it's an excellent example of relative social values. Perhaps that will be the next taboo to fall. Polygamy laws are probably intended to protect multiple spouses from unequal treatment (and as a matter of practicality for the government). Beyond that, where is the harm?

You are going to have to tell me how polygamists are different. They are certainly a minority group. Are they just not protected? We have non-discrimination acts for race, gender, age, and religion. What makes them not protected?

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/21/2009 03:01:22 PM · #2493

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I suspect there are a lot of people who fear it's a slippery slope. They don't agree with gay marriage, but they are, on some level, willing to let them have their way. However, they then worry that down the line someone is going to say, "you know, I've always loved St Patrick's Cathedral. I want to get married there." and then sue the church because they do not allow what is accepted everywhere else. What then? I think that is a very real fear and I don't think it's a completely irrational one.

The slippery slope argument is always a bad one. I was taught to argue the points at hand, not to look down some imagined hallway and say "look where we might end up".

At any rate your hypothetical is silly. St. Patrick's is only allowed to marry Catholics who are confirmed. It will not allow gay marriages, Jewish marriages, Seventh Day Adventist marriages or rock concerts. On the other hand if you are renting out a facilities hall for any members of the public who have the coin, but you find gay marriage wrong and don't want to see them in your hall, you will be in trouble when you decide to refuse to rent your space to them, just as any landlord who dosen't like to rent to certain races tend to end up in trouble.

You don't think there are no gay, confirmed Catholics out there? I see this as a very real possibility down the road. I don't think it's a ficticious hypothetical. But you can replace a specifically catholic church with a general protestant one. I think the fear remains real and potentially valid.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/21/2009 03:06:25 PM · #2494

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
You say "two people" like its a magic number, and it is in our society, but in Mormon and Muslim cultures it is not. These folks have no issue with polygamy. They may like it but we as a society say it is illegal.

Polygamists are not a protected minority group subject to discrimination, but it's an excellent example of relative social values. Perhaps that will be the next taboo to fall. Polygamy laws are probably intended to protect multiple spouses from unequal treatment (and as a matter of practicality for the government). Beyond that, where is the harm?

You are going to have to tell me how polygamists are different. They are certainly a minority group. Are they just not protected? We have non-discrimination acts for race, gender, age, and religion. What makes them not protected?

As far as I'm concerned, there's no reasonable social argument against polygamy, just a "moral" one based on religious tenets entirely. And I don't see offhand where the state has any business meddling in that, any more than it does in same-sex marriages. It even seems to me, with the way the economic cycle is spinning, there may be real-world arguments for the "greater security" of multiply-partnered unionsâ�¢...

Certainly, we are seeing a return to real-world living units of couples-plus, whether these units be extended generations of a family or quasi-communal extended-but-unrelated families. And certainly living units like these are (and always have been) commonplace in the larger world "out there", albeit less so in America and Europe.

I myself am a veteran of the communes of the late 60's and the 70's, and I cherish the experiences I had in them, which were a major contributing factor in the (relative) tolerance that marks my attitudes to this day.

R.

Message edited by author 2009-04-21 15:07:25.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

04/21/2009 03:11:54 PM · #2495

Interesting the addition of polygamy. I suspect the US ban against such is based on financial gain. Probably something with tax laws and potential revenue. (And by the way, the official branch of the LDS church no longer sanctions polygamy.)

I do wonder, though, how the US handles a situation where an intact family arrives in the country as legal immigrants, and more than one wife is involved. Anyone know?

(For the record, in case anyone is interested, I have nothing against polygamy. It is a valid practice in a number of places in the world. Who's to say they've got it wrong?)

04/21/2009 03:17:02 PM · #2496

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

There's a greater social stigma on polygamy than homosexuality (relative to our society), but as Bear notes, there may be no practical difference just as there was no real difference with interracial marriage. As long as the spouses are treated equally, where is the harm in Saudi Arabian polygamy? Sure there may be minor differences in treatment, but the same could be said of a family's children.

04/21/2009 03:19:45 PM · #2497

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Since all polygamy currently practiced is of the one man with many wives variety, polygamy has a wide ranging effect on a society, increasing sexual role definitions, turning young females into a valuable and salable commodity, limiting the genetic pool since most men will be without a spouse, and increasing homosexual activity among young men. It consolidates power and money in the hands of the few. As practiced in Arabia and certain parts of Texas, it drives most of the young men out of the home in their early teens, before they can "spoil" the girls, but also before they are ready to go out into the world unsupported by their families. Divorced women in these cultures can not work, nor are they likely to find another husband (which is ironic, since the Koran intended polygamy to be allow a marriage to absorb widows who would be without support otherwise). There are alot of societal results of allowing polygamy to become the norm.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

04/21/2009 03:24:35 PM · #2498

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

As far as I'm concerned, there's no reasonable social argument against polygamy, just a "moral" one based on religious tenets entirely. And I don't see offhand where the state has any business meddling in that, any more than it does in same-sex marriages. It even seems to me, with the way the economic cycle is spinning, there may be real-world arguments for the "greater security" of multiply-partnered unionsâ�¢...

R.

Since all polygamy currently practiced is of the one man with many wives variety, polygamy has a wide ranging effect on a society, increasing sexual role definitions, turning young females into a valuable and salable commodity, limiting the genetic pool since most men will be without a spouse, and increasing homosexual activity among young men. It consolidates power and money in the hands of the few. As practiced in Arabia and certain parts of Texas, it drives most of the young men out of the home in their early teens, before they can "spoil" the girls, but also before they are ready to go out into the world unsupported by their families. Divorced women in these cultures can not work, nor are they likely to find another husband (which is ironic, since the Koran intended polygamy to be allow a marriage to absorb widows who would be without support otherwise). There are alot of societal results of allowing polygamy to become the norm.

You've almost described the life of a lion pride, though the male does get challenged and replaced periodically to renew the gene pool. :-)

These things might be unacceptable to the society with which you are familiar, but perfectly acceptable in the society in which they are practiced.

04/21/2009 03:25:35 PM · #2499

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are going to have to tell me how polygamists are different. They are certainly a minority group. Are they just not protected? We have non-discrimination acts for race, gender, age, and religion. What makes them not protected?

There's a greater social stigma on polygamy than homosexuality (relative to our society), but as Bear notes, there may be no practical difference just as there was no real difference with interracial marriage. As long as the spouses are treated equally, where is the harm in Saudi Arabian polygamy? Sure there may be minor differences in treatment, but the same could be said of a family's children.

This seems different from you statement that "polygamists are not a protected minority subject to discrimination". Are you retracting that statement or are you shifting your stance?