| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/30/2011 10:42:32 PM · #5476 |
The nature of democracy is one of intractable positions figuring out how to live together.
The reason marriage is no longer limited to heterosexual unions in New York State is that two legislators who opposed gay marriage had their opinions changed by the same sort of back and forth discussions that have been going on in this thread for a while now. These sort of opinions are deep held and move with glacial speed, for those few that are capable of changing their opinions. |
|
|
|
06/30/2011 11:01:55 PM · #5477 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The nature of democracy is one of intractable positions figuring out how to live together.
The reason marriage is no longer limited to heterosexual unions in New York State is that two legislators who opposed gay marriage had their opinions changed by the same sort of back and forth discussions that have been going on in this thread for a while now. These sort of opinions are deep held and move with glacial speed, for those few that are capable of changing their opinions. |
That's usually how it works. Arguments based on fear and irrationality, no matter how rooted, spoil at their expiration dates.
Message edited by author 2011-06-30 23:03:25.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2011 11:32:39 PM · #5478 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have never seen or heard of a news clipping, anecdote or story where someone has actually said "we want to marry for X reason" even though they are hetero- or asexual. I allow for the possible exception, but it would pale in comparison to the number of gays who want to marry (though that number is also, in reality, much smaller than we imagine it to be). It strikes me that there is a difference and the obvious difference is the sexual nature of the relationship. |
Then you haven't been paying attention. |
Indeed. Nobody has EVER demanded the right to marry so they can have sex. They can do that anyway. News reports frequently profile gay couples who have been living together for decades, some into their nineties, without being married. Does anybody outside of Nullix and Achoo seriously think they were waiting all this time for the right to have sex?!? Of course not, it's absurd. I doubt you could find a single report anywhere on the planet of a gay couple equating the right to marriage with the right to have sex. EVERY news clipping, anecdote or story about gay marriage is for the simple reason of legal equality... the right to recognition of the commitments they're already making and the enormous list of social and legal benefits that come with it.
What you're both doing here is trying to tie a restriction against equality to the characteristic that led to the discrimination in the first place even though they're unrelated. It would be like Israel banning Christians from marriage because the religious majority associate that group with eating pork. Sure, most Christians eat pork, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with estate rights, survivor benefits, medical authority, custody rights, tax benefits, etc... and they'll still munch bacon either way. Women didn't seek equal rights so they could legally be women, blacks didn't fight for voting rights so they could have dark skin, and gays aren't seeking marriage for the right to have sex. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 12:22:08 AM · #5479 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The nature of democracy is one of intractable positions figuring out how to live together.
The reason marriage is no longer limited to heterosexual unions in New York State is that two legislators who opposed gay marriage had their opinions changed by the same sort of back and forth discussions that have been going on in this thread for a while now. These sort of opinions are deep held and move with glacial speed, for those few that are capable of changing their opinions. |
Good point!
Opinion of gay marriage |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 12:25:02 AM · #5480 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have never seen or heard of a news clipping, anecdote or story where someone has actually said "we want to marry for X reason" even though they are hetero- or asexual. I allow for the possible exception, but it would pale in comparison to the number of gays who want to marry (though that number is also, in reality, much smaller than we imagine it to be). It strikes me that there is a difference and the obvious difference is the sexual nature of the relationship. |
Then you haven't been paying attention. |
Indeed. Nobody has EVER demanded the right to marry so they can have sex. They can do that anyway. News reports frequently profile gay couples who have been living together for decades, some into their nineties, without being married. Does anybody outside of Nullix and Achoo seriously think they were waiting all this time for the right to have sex?!? Of course not, it's absurd. I doubt you could find a single report anywhere on the planet of a gay couple equating the right to marriage with the right to have sex. EVERY news clipping, anecdote or story about gay marriage is for the simple reason of legal equality... the right to recognition of the commitments they're already making and the enormous list of social and legal benefits that come with it.
What you're both doing here is trying to tie a restriction against equality to the characteristic that led to the discrimination in the first place even though they're unrelated. It would be like Israel banning Christians from marriage because the religious majority associate that group with eating pork. Sure, most Christians eat pork, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with estate rights, survivor benefits, medical authority, custody rights, tax benefits, etc... and they'll still munch bacon either way. Women didn't seek equal rights so they could legally be women, blacks didn't fight for voting rights so they could have dark skin, and gays aren't seeking marriage for the right to have sex. |
Your points are well-taken and we're in complete agreement, but I *would* caution that the bolded statement above is not entirely accurate; there are even now, and definitely have been historically, plenty of restrictive societies where it's extremely difficult (and dangerous) to get access to a woman without marrying her...
R. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 12:45:10 AM · #5481 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I *would* caution that the bolded statement above is not entirely accurate; there are even now, and definitely have been historically, plenty of restrictive societies where it's extremely difficult (and dangerous) to get access to a woman without marrying her... |
True enough (it's a big deal in Saudi Arabia right now), and those societies tend to have severe restrictions on other basic civil rights issues that we've long moved past. To compare such an environment to our own would only highlight such discrimination as an archaic attitude that's disgraceful in this day and age. We might as well be stoning albinos.
Message edited by author 2011-07-01 00:46:15. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 01:30:16 AM · #5482 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
The one thing this thread has shown me... Group A is never going to understand Group B, and vice versa. Really is rather pointless to even discuss, isn't it? |
One thing I have certainly noticed, yet probably have never learned is that nuanced argument has no place on these threads. Nullix seemed to say it was all about the sex and then Bear seemed to say it wasn't about the sex at all. I tried to say there was probably truth in both posts, but that's not how anybody takes it. Everybody would rather think that I mean it's all about the sex as well.
Sigh... |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 01:33:13 AM · #5483 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I *would* caution that the bolded statement above is not entirely accurate; there are even now, and definitely have been historically, plenty of restrictive societies where it's extremely difficult (and dangerous) to get access to a woman without marrying her... |
True enough (it's a big deal in Saudi Arabia right now), and those societies tend to have severe restrictions on other basic civil rights issues that we've long moved past. To compare such an environment to our own would only highlight such discrimination as an archaic attitude that's disgraceful in this day and age. We might as well be stoning albinos. |
Hehe. It's funny to see you imply that we have "progressed" morally. Is this part of your moral pretending again? |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 09:08:52 AM · #5484 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Why not fund courses to teach people about a healthy marriage? Why not fund programs to help married couples in need? Or any number of a million other uses I could think of to use millions of dollars for that WOULD actually help to truly protect marriage, as best as anyone can. |
As mentioned, this IS happening every single day. Marriage counselling. Couples retreats. Sermon series. Weeknight classes. Believe me, helping people with their marriage has been a top priority in at least every church I've attended.
Or maybe you are saying you want the government to fund this? (not quite sure if that's what you mean). |
I don't mean the government. I mean all the people donating to fight gay marriage. I don't know. It just kind of hurts me somewhere deep inside the amount of money thrown at something like that when there are such bigger fish to fry. My friend doing peace corps in Ehtiopia could say a thing or two about that. All this money to stop gays from getting married and her village can go without fresh water for weeks at a time. I tutor North Korean refugees in English every Friday and to hear some of their stories, the struggles they've gone through. I dunno... this just all seems do damn petty really. It's hard enough to come by a family these days the way everyone's all spread out, broke, selfish, whatever the reasons that we don't have strong extended units any more. My student today told me he doesn't know if his mom and brother are dead or alive, and another student doesn't even know his or his own parent's names. He made it to China at the age of 3 or 4. I didn't get the full story... but it's been really sinking in to my mind.
I feel awful melancholy about the state of the world. How hard it is to have people to depend on. And then you get these religious groups all high and mighty about who can and can't be a family. And my family is better than yours, and my family should get these rights, and yours is sin.
And I really just wanna say. When it comes to other people's lives, where they aren't hurting anyone, it's not your business how other people want to run their families. It's not for you to say what's right and wrong. The total lack of empathy boggles the mind. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 11:35:43 AM · #5485 |
Well, it probably won't make you feel better, but even millions of dollars is an absolute drop in the bucket. Ten million dollars is 1/10,000th of 1% of the GDP (0.0001%). So while it feels like it has to be an either/or thing and if they are spending money on this, they must not be spending money on the other, it's just not true.
Your last sentence, of course, is a double edged sword. If it's not for anybody to say what's right or wrong, then it isn't for you to say that spending money on this cause is wrong either. What you are saying is "Judgement on others is wrong", but that, of course, is a judgement... |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 12:51:20 PM · #5486 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hehe. It's funny to see you imply that we have "progressed" morally. |
Yeah, it's just knee-slapping hilarious that our morals have declined so far from stoning adulterers, burning heretics, executing petty thieves, owning slaves, and subjugating women. :-/ |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 01:29:59 PM · #5487 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hehe. It's funny to see you imply that we have "progressed" morally. |
Yeah, it's just knee-slapping hilarious that our morals have declined so far from stoning adulterers, burning heretics, executing petty thieves, owning slaves, and subjugating women. :-/ |
Of course, between the two of us, "progressed" only has meaning to me, not you. You would naturally concede that the statement "People ought to act more like we do than like people who stone adulterers, burn heretics, execute petty thieves, or own slaves" is false.
Message edited by author 2011-07-01 13:30:16. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 01:51:52 PM · #5488 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, it probably won't make you feel better, but even millions of dollars is an absolute drop in the bucket. Ten million dollars is 1/10,000th of 1% of the GDP (0.0001%). So while it feels like it has to be an either/or thing and if they are spending money on this, they must not be spending money on the other, it's just not true.
Your last sentence, of course, is a double edged sword. If it's not for anybody to say what's right or wrong, then it isn't for you to say that spending money on this cause is wrong either. What you are saying is "Judgement on others is wrong", but that, of course, is a judgement... |
Right and wrong in what constitutes a family. I thought that was implied but I guess I have to be quite literal. And I don't believe I ever did say spending money was wrong. I just think it's a waste. A shameful waste. I make no bones about judgements. I judge people just like anyone else. But you wanna have your nuclear family, be my guest. I'd expect the same courtesy back to whatever family I'd like to have. Though for fear of more semantic picking, I have to say, with consenting adults in a non-harmful way.
Sigh. I see you made no mention of the real point of my argument and just picked at what you could. What say you of the need to have family? I mean that's what Christians go on and on about isn't it? Breaking down of the home, values, bonds, whatever the case. And then to go saying, well no no, but you can't do it THAT way.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2011 02:00:04 PM · #5489 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, it probably won't make you feel better, but even millions of dollars is an absolute drop in the bucket. Ten million dollars is 1/10,000th of 1% of the GDP (0.0001%). So while it feels like it has to be an either/or thing and if they are spending money on this, they must not be spending money on the other, it's just not true.
Your last sentence, of course, is a double edged sword. If it's not for anybody to say what's right or wrong, then it isn't for you to say that spending money on this cause is wrong either. What you are saying is "Judgement on others is wrong", but that, of course, is a judgement... |
Right and wrong in what constitutes a family. I thought that was implied but I guess I have to be quite literal. And I don't believe I ever did say spending money was wrong. I just think it's a waste. A shameful waste. I make no bones about judgements. I judge people just like anyone else. But you wanna have your nuclear family, be my guest. I'd expect the same courtesy back to whatever family I'd like to have. Though for fear of more semantic picking, I have to say, with consenting adults in a non-harmful way.
Sigh. I see you made no mention of the real point of my argument and just picked at what you could. What say you of the need to have family? I mean that's what Christians go on and on about isn't it? Breaking down of the home, values, bonds, whatever the case. And then to go saying, well no no, but you can't do it THAT way. |
Careful escape. You'll always leave yourself open to picking, with the good Doc. You write, "non-harmful". To the people that he likes to "support" (he'll fight to the death to swear that he's only playing devil's advocate and none of what he writes are how HE feels, trust me), same-sex marriage is HORRENDOUSLY harmful. To everything they believe in. It's a no-win situation.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2011 03:19:52 PM · #5490 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It's a no-win situation. |
This is probably just the reality of it. The problem is intractable.
Oz, just please don't expand my position. I have always been supportive of gay rights in the workplace and the public. I don't have a particular problem with adoption and such (since you mention family). At this time I just don't feel that it is a "right" to redefine the term "marriage". Or, at the very least, I don't see a compelling need to redefine it if the voting public does not want to do so. I am quite comfortable with Washington state's approach to the subject. But Ed is right, I'm not going to convince you and it's unlikely you will convince me. We will each have to travel our own path to truth. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 03:31:07 PM · #5491 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
At this time I just don't feel that it is a "right" to redefine the term "marriage". |
Didn't the "state" already "redefine" the term marriage by making it a legal contract between two people, conferring upon them certain rights and responsibilities towards each other and the state? There's nothing (or shouldn't be) anything in the statutes which require holy intervention in order for a couple be considered legally married.
The term "marriage" already has more than one definition -- unless the church plans to burn the OED you aren't going to change that fact. I bet all of the major religions each have their own nuanced version. So, the definition which defines the legal cotractual relationship is every bit as valid as the one which calls it a divinely-blessed covenant, and applies in a different milieu.
No church will be required to recognize a same-sex couple as divinely-blessed, but the secular legal system is constitutionally required to treat all similarly-situated citizens equally, regardless of gender. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 03:50:44 PM · #5492 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
No church will be required to recognize a same-sex couple as divinely-blessed, but the secular legal system is constitutionally required to treat all similarly-situated citizens equally, regardless of gender. |
And, as mentioned, it currently does. Where it is legal to marry someone of the same sex, all can do it. Where it isn't, none can. But we can both at least rest assured that eventually the legal system will come up with its own (hopefully) clear answer. Legality is usually easier to argue than morality because we have a final word in the form of the court system. It will be up to the court system in each state to determine whether same-sex marriage is constitutionally required or not. Originally I thought the SCOTUS would be the determiner, but upon reflection I'm not so sure. I think they will punt this back to the states to decide for themselves although they may rule on DOMA. My prediction is we will have a patchwork system for at least as long as you are alive (ie. decades).
Historically, the problem probably arose when the church and state were comingled. What was a secular instition? What was a religious one? Most things were both and that probably confuses the situation when we have separation between the two. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 04:53:46 PM · #5493 |
| Just thought I'd pass on an editorial in the WSJ. Evangelicals and the gay moral revolution. It isn't an argumentative or persuasive piece, but does hopefully show that there are plenty of thoughtful people who understand the complexity of the issue and the deliberate course that is needed to move forward. In other words, it's not black and white. We're not all Westboro members if we are not on board with the pro-marriage position. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 05:01:02 PM · #5494 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Of course, between the two of us, "progressed" only has meaning to me, not you. |
Apparently "progressed" doesn't apply to everyone. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 05:22:25 PM · #5495 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...then Bear seemed to say it wasn't about the sex at all... |
I didn't say that. You need to read more carefully. Nullix was taking the position that every gay relationship is sexually driven, and I took exception to that. Homosexual persons are no different from heterosexual persons in that regard.
R. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 05:29:18 PM · #5496 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...then Bear seemed to say it wasn't about the sex at all... |
I didn't say that. You need to read more carefully. Nullix was taking the position that every gay relationship is sexually driven, and I took exception to that. Homosexual persons are no different from heterosexual persons in that regard.
R. |
DrAchoo has also taken this stance. The disconnect that homosexuality can ONLY be defined by sexual ACTION and not sexual feeling. A gay couple can be celibate, yet still be gay, because of their love for each other. They can be physically affectionate without 'consumation'.
It's really a rather sad state of ignorance.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2011 05:33:59 PM · #5497 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally I thought the SCOTUS would be the determiner, but upon reflection I'm not so sure. I think they will punt this back to the states to decide for themselves although they may rule on DOMA. My prediction is we will have a patchwork system for at least as long as you are alive (ie. decades). |
We've already been down this road with interracial marriage and interfaith marriage: some states adopt equality while others fight tooth and nail on the grounds of personal prejudice and religious dogma. The current situation of recognition only within certain states is untenable for the same reasons those were (including constitutional mandate), so gay marriage will be federally recognized within 5 years, and more likely within two. As with the first two issues, the conservative (traditional) crowd will scream and yell about all the bad things that will happen if freedom is granted, none of which will actually occur, and within two generations nobody will remember why it was such a big deal in the first place. It's inevitable. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 05:36:29 PM · #5498 |
| Well, I guess we can bet a beer on our prognostications, Shannon. :) |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 05:38:14 PM · #5499 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
DrAchoo has also taken this stance. The disconnect that homosexuality can ONLY be defined by sexual ACTION and not sexual feeling. A gay couple can be celibate, yet still be gay, because of their love for each other. They can be physically affectionate without 'consumation'.
It's really a rather sad state of ignorance. |
I'm not sure that reflects my position because I don't even understand what you are saying. Is that whole paragraph supposed to reflect my position, or just the first line? |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 05:39:18 PM · #5500 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I guess we can bet a beer on our prognostications, Shannon. :) |
It's a sucker bet, but you won't lose much. I don't drink. ;-) |
|
