|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/11/2008 05:49:23 PM · #676 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
There was a time when it was an accepted truth that the earth was flat.
Life changes. Fortunately, it's changing again. We're not there yet, but we will get there. |
So are you saying the side that doesn't agree with you is exclusively inhabited by people who are irrational or bigots or both? |
I don't know how you'd come to that conclusion.
I'm saying that when confronted with enough evidence and reason to change a way of thinking that has "always been that way", the way of thinking can be changed, and universal truths can be broken. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 05:55:28 PM · #677 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
There was a time when it was an accepted truth that the earth was flat.
Life changes. Fortunately, it's changing again. We're not there yet, but we will get there. |
So are you saying the side that doesn't agree with you is exclusively inhabited by people who are irrational or bigots or both? |
I don't know how you'd come to that conclusion.
I'm saying that when confronted with enough evidence and reason to change a way of thinking that has "always been that way", the way of thinking can be changed, and universal truths can be broken. |
I guess I'm reacting to the "flat earth" thing. I see now you are saying that at one time it was perfectly reasonable to believe the earth was flat but eventually evidence accumulated to show otherwise and eventually it wasn't reasonable to believe the same. I can buy that, although I'd argue with the exact application of that because a flat earth is a scientific (ie provable) principle while gay marriage is a philosophical (ie. not subject to "fact" but rather "logic") one. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 06:01:25 PM · #678 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can buy that, although I'd argue with the exact application of that because a flat earth is a scientific (ie provable) principle while gay marriage is a philosophical (ie. not subject to "fact" but rather "logic") one. |
The same was once true of the flat earth principle. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 06:03:34 PM · #679 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
There was a time when it was an accepted truth that the earth was flat.
Life changes. Fortunately, it's changing again. We're not there yet, but we will get there. |
So are you saying the side that doesn't agree with you is exclusively inhabited by people who are irrational or bigots or both? |
I don't know how you'd come to that conclusion.
I'm saying that when confronted with enough evidence and reason to change a way of thinking that has "always been that way", the way of thinking can be changed, and universal truths can be broken. |
I guess I'm reacting to the "flat earth" thing. I see now you are saying that at one time it was perfectly reasonable to believe the earth was flat but eventually evidence accumulated to show otherwise and eventually it wasn't reasonable to believe the same. I can buy that, although I'd argue with the exact application of that because a flat earth is a scientific (ie provable) principle while gay marriage is a philosophical (ie. not subject to "fact" but rather "logic") one. |
I don't see much of a difference in principle between scientific fact and conclusions drawn on strong and sound logic. Also, such things as "Gay marriage will destroy families" can be very much argued on a scientific basis. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 06:05:50 PM · #680 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I don't see much of a difference in principle between scientific fact and conclusions drawn on strong and sound logic. Also, such things as "Gay marriage will destroy families" can be very much argued on a scientific basis. |
I'd disagree. Scientific principles are grounded in scientific law which is irrefutable to all parties intended. Philosophical principles are all, ultimately, based on statements which are taken to be true, but unproven and not necessarily agreed on by all parties especially when we are talking ethics and morality.
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 18:09:22. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 06:11:29 PM · #681 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by metatate:
As to not distance myself from the topic too much, I am of the opinion that this is an area where we remember that marriage is a legal exercise - and to some, a religious one. Either way, the license is a document of the state - and one that should not fall victim to judgment or discrimination. |
But from the beginning, the laws concerning the granting of a marriage license by the state have been discriminatory in every state ( to the best of my knowledge ): e.g. a man cannot marry his mother, sister, aunt, or 1st cousin; a woman cannot marry her father, brother, uncle, or 1st cousin.
Do you feel that state judiciaries should repeal those discriminatory prohibitions, as well? |
Incest is a tad bit different than gay marriage. Outside of any moral issues, there are valid genetic reasons for prohibiting incest.
I find it interesting that you would bring up an inflamitory issue like incest, in this discussion, when there is no demonstrated correlation.
50 years ago, in many states the laws did not allow persons of one race to marry another. While there may be the occasional biggot who still feels that way, most people are long since past that. So it will evenually be, with gay marriage. I see it coming, as much as integration, as much as interracial marriage, or any other discrimination from the past. Slavery was practiced from the beginning. Is there any defense for continuing with that in modern times? Personally, when the last hungry child is fed, when the last of the homeless are cared for, when the last of the oppressed are free, then and only then will I care about who marries whom, unless it is my immediate family. In the case of my immediate family, as long as they are happy, and treat each other with respect, then it is none of my business there also.
For the record, I am not gay. As far as I know, none of my children are gay. I just can see wasting all those millions of dollars that could have done so much, to defend the "sanctity" of something that people like Brittany Spears, and Jimmy Swaggart had no problem making a mockery of, and nobody called them on it.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2008 06:20:30 PM · #682 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by JMart:
 RonB, I'm sure you're correct that allowing gay people to have equal protection under the law with regard to marriage can, and likely will, have a wide reaching impact. I disagree, however, that any group of people being discriminated against should be delayed in gaining their civil liberties.
Is there a good reason why we deny gay people equal protection? |
The Supreme Court ruling in California says that California did deny gay people equal protection, specifically on the basis that the ONLY term used to define heterosexual marriage was, well, "marriage"; heterosexuals were not permitted to enter into "domestic partnerships" - therefore, that term MUST be available to same-sex unions as well. The Judiciary could just as easily have ruled that the "domestic partnership" law was unconstitutional, in that it did not permit heterosexuals to register as a "domestic partnership" ( unless one of them was over the age of 62, for some reason ).
IF the California Legislature were to change the law such that henceforth all legal unions would be called "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions", then the term "marriage" could be reserved for religious "marriages" only, without violating California's Equal Protection clause - because legal unions would all have the same name regardless of the gender(s) of the members of that union. But then, they would have to change the "domestic partnership" law to permit heterosexual unions. |
The trouble with this is the definition of "religious 'marriages'". Upon which religion are we going to confer the ability to decide what is religiously acceptable and what is not. The answer, of course, has to be "none of them". The state can not make such religious determinations without running afoul of the establishment clause in the US Constitution.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by JMart:
What is there to be deliberated or to be cautious of? More importantly, shouldn't we be expedient in correcting violations of the US constitution that demands equal protection under the law? |
It's not the U.S. Constitution that is/was being challenged - it was California's State Constitution. Until someone brings a challenge to, for example, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court will likely not become involved in the issue of gay marriage.
As I pointed out above, what's Constitutional and Un-Constitutional can be remedied by changing words in the law. In fact, that's what happens most of the time.
Gay "Marriage" in California was only "constitutional" because of the failure to grant a different name than "marriage" to heterosexual unions. Change the law to call them "domestic partnerships" and voila, prohibiting gay "marriage" is no longer un-constitutional. |
Of course, California's constitution is subordinate to the US constitution and anti-gay marriage arguments tend to boil down to a violation of the 1st amendment's establishment clause and/or the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. With regard to calling "civil union" and "marriage" equal, well yes, I'd agree that it is possible to grant all of the benefits of marriage to people with civil unions so they are at least congruent on some level, however, I'm also confident that the name of the various legal standings are not equal, otherwise we would not need to have this debate.
Why do anti-gay marriage people care about the word marriage? Because it means something more to them than civil union. If heterosexual people have access to that coveted label and homosexual people are denied it, then we have a clear inequality with regard to how the law treats these groups of people. If the word marriage is too saturated in rich religious tradition to allow gay people to use it then it's up to the religious community to attempt to replace the word marriage with civil union for everyone regardless of sex or sexual preference. Until that time, gay people are not getting the equal treatment required by the 14th amendment. That is, unless you want to argue that the word "marriage" holds no value. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 06:43:42 PM · #683 |
I would like to examine your hunting analogy, we allow hunting, but limit what can be hunted. The state limits what can be hunted based on rational facts. Shooting does with fawns at their sides is disruptive to the breeding cycle and not an efficient use of a resource. So we have hunting seasons.. The spotted owl is so close to extinction that none may be hunted until their population recovers.So we have hunting bans.
On the other hand the church can limit what can be hunted. Wild boar are great game and good eating, but if you are an Othodox Jew or a Muslim they are tref, you can't even touch them. But the state has no interest in limiting what the rest of us can do because of others' faith. If your holy book says bacon is a sin before God's eyes, fine. I like my bacon slightly crispy and that leaves more for me.
To jump in on the other question of flat earth, and the endurance of understanding and faith; The argument that God has made a decree of marriage being limited to one man and one woman has two flaws.
Firstly in a nominally secular society dieistic decrees can not be the basis of law, they can be guides, but those guides have to be steered by civil arguments that speak to the advantages of any action for a society and those advantages must be greater than the costs of the proscribed behaviors to the citizens whos actions are being limited.
The second reason why saying "cause God says so" is a poor excuse to allow the evolution of marriage is that even using the bible as the only reference. Adam and Eve didn't marry because marriage didn't exist. King Solomon was beloved by God, though he had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. Within the Christin tradition, and without it, marriage has been evolving since it has existed, and will continue to do so.
The fundamental question remains, how is society injured by Gay marriage; and is that injury sufficient to justify a bar to this legal institution (marriage) to certain subset of citizens (homosexuals) who are breaking no law? |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 06:51:04 PM · #684 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The fundamental question remains, how is society injured by Gay marriage; and is that injury sufficient to justify a bar to this legal institution (marriage) to certain subset of citizens (homosexuals) who are breaking no law? |
That's the liberty argument and you have to take it whole. If I can post some case where people say "whoa", then the argument falls apart. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 07:06:29 PM · #685 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That's the liberty argument and you have to take it whole. If I can post some case where people say "whoa", then the argument falls apart. |
I'm not really clear on what the "liberty argument" is supposed to be, but are you saying that if you can point out a case where any liberty is curtailed then any action is subject to limitation? I'm not trying to be dense, and I like your debate style, I just didn't follow your last turn.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2008 07:06:57 PM · #686 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The fundamental question remains, how is society injured by Gay marriage; and is that injury sufficient to justify a bar to this legal institution (marriage) to certain subset of citizens (homosexuals) who are breaking no law? |
That's the liberty argument and you have to take it whole. If I can post some case where people say "whoa", then the argument falls apart. |
But Doc, while you can find people who say, "whoa" to gay marriage based on their personal beliefs, you'd probably have a difficult time finding people who would have any legal standing to say, "whoa". Standing in a legal sense is not proven by protesting, it is proven by demonstrating that you are connected to and harmed by someone else. What is the actual connection and harm someone has endured (or would endure) due to gay marriage? |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 07:20:15 PM · #687 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The prohibition should be restricted to incest - which results in objectively ascertainable genetic weakening of the race (and therefore has a logical basis as well as the "taboo" basis). |
Huh? What logical basis? How would two (i.e. not 50 million) related but consenting adults weaken the "human race"? Should the government be in the business of monitoring or guiding the evolution of the human race? What about the mentally ill or other unhealthy people? Should we prevent these people from coupling as well? If not, why not?
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 19:22:10.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2008 07:25:54 PM · #688 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Standing in a legal sense is not proven by protesting, it is proven by demonstrating that you are connected to and harmed by someone else. What is the actual connection and harm someone has endured (or would endure) due to gay marriage? |
Standing must also prove that your injury is great enough to overwhelm the rights of another's rights to a particular action.
As to why there should be a change to an established norm, that marriage is a heterosexual union exclusively, it is because until a few years ago homosexuality was illegal in itself. Given that our society no longer holds that people should be jailed for being gay, barring gays from the full legal rights the rest of us enjoy must be done based on specific harms that would be the result form allowing them their full franchise. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 07:52:15 PM · #689 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by metatate:
As to not distance myself from the topic too much, I am of the opinion that this is an area where we remember that marriage is a legal exercise - and to some, a religious one. Either way, the license is a document of the state - and one that should not fall victim to judgment or discrimination. |
But from the beginning, the laws concerning the granting of a marriage license by the state have been discriminatory in every state ( to the best of my knowledge ): e.g. a man cannot marry his mother, sister, aunt, or 1st cousin; a woman cannot marry her father, brother, uncle, or 1st cousin.
Do you feel that state judiciaries should repeal those discriminatory prohibitions, as well? |
Incest is a tad bit different than gay marriage. Outside of any moral issues, there are valid genetic reasons for prohibiting incest. |
1) What moral issues? From a moral perspective, is incest any different than adultery (which is legal), fornication (which is legal), sodomy (which is legal)? If so, on what basis? If we can move the "moral" line for gay sex, can't we move the line for incest ( between consenting adults, of course )?
2) If one ( or both ) of the parties are sterile, there would be no "valid genetic reasons", so that argument becomes moot.
3) Are you willing to rip apart a loving couple just because they are brother and sister? Would you deny them their right to love and be loved? To live in a committed, loving relationship? To have all of the legal rights, yada, yada ( you know, all the arguments for gay marriage stated earlier )?
And that's my point. Incest should be no more stigmatized than gay marriage on either moral grounds or state's interest if one ( or both ) of the parties are sterile and both are consenting adults. Did I change your mind about certain incestuous relationships? If not, why not? The arguments are the same as for gay couples.
Originally posted by ambaker:
I find it interesting that you would bring up an inflamitory issue like incest, in this discussion, when there is no demonstrated correlation. |
Why is a discussion of incest inflammatory, given my position that it becomes a non-issue vis-a-vis state's interest, if one ( or both ) parties are sterile and both are consenting adults? The demonstrated correlation is that if procreation is removed as a state's interest, thereby legalizing gay marriage, then marriage between siblings, etc. ( incestuous, but within the given parameters ) should also be legal by virtue of the same legal interpretations - i.e. "no compelling state's interest" to discriminate.
Originally posted by ambaker:
50 years ago, in many states the laws did not allow persons of one race to marry another. While there may be the occasional biggot who still feels that way, most people are long since past that. So it will evenually be, with gay marriage. I see it coming, as much as integration, as much as interracial marriage, or any other discrimination from the past. Slavery was practiced from the beginning. Is there any defense for continuing with that in modern times? |
You're only "preaching to the choir" with the ad-nauseam repetition of the history of interracial marriage and slavery. Such arguments are irrelevant. Gender and skin color have been scientifically proven to be 100% nature (genetic), 0% nurture; sexual orientation has not been scientifically proven to be 100% nature (genetic). For those arguments to have real application you will have to wait until science provides proof that sexual orientation is genetic.
P.S. unless you are willing to embrace folks with sexual orientations other than heterosexual/homosexual, you probably shouldn't counter with a rebuttal that "sexual orientation really is 100% genetic, it just hasn't been proven yet". If the I-word upsets you, how much more upsetting would the P-word be?
Originally posted by ambaker:
Personally, when the last hungry child is fed, when the last of the homeless are cared for, when the last of the oppressed are free, then and only then will I care about who marries whom, unless it is my immediate family. In the case of my immediate family, as long as they are happy, and treat each other with respect, then it is none of my business there also. |
Bravo. Well said. I mean it.
Originally posted by ambaker:
For the record, I am not gay. As far as I know, none of my children are gay. I just can see wasting all those millions of dollars that could have done so much, to defend the "sanctity" of something that people like Brittany Spears, and Jimmy Swaggart had no problem making a mockery of, and nobody called them on it. |
They have both been excoriated by the media. What do you mean, nobody called them on it.
And, for the record, I'm not gay, either, nor are any of my children, as far as I know. Are those facts pertinent to the discussion? |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 07:59:18 PM · #690 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That's the liberty argument and you have to take it whole. If I can post some case where people say "whoa", then the argument falls apart. |
I'm not really clear on what the "liberty argument" is supposed to be, but are you saying that if you can point out a case where any liberty is curtailed then any action is subject to limitation? I'm not trying to be dense, and I like your debate style, I just didn't follow your last turn. |
What I think you are saying is this. "If two consenting adults want to participate in an action that doesn't hurt anybody, why should they be stopped?" That, to me, is an argument from the position of liberty. We should have the right to do what we want unless it hurts someone else. My point is that I can typically come up with some example where everybody says "well, we shouldn't really support THAT action". Above I talked about the "brothers in love". The bottom line is if you draw a line then the argument from liberty becomes much less robust. In other words, why should you have the liberty to do one action (gay marriage, lets say), but not the liberty to do another even less accepted action (the brothers in love marrying). |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 08:02:20 PM · #691 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The fundamental question remains, how is society injured by Gay marriage; and is that injury sufficient to justify a bar to this legal institution (marriage) to certain subset of citizens (homosexuals) who are breaking no law? |
That's the liberty argument and you have to take it whole. If I can post some case where people say "whoa", then the argument falls apart. |
But Doc, while you can find people who say, "whoa" to gay marriage based on their personal beliefs, you'd probably have a difficult time finding people who would have any legal standing to say, "whoa". Standing in a legal sense is not proven by protesting, it is proven by demonstrating that you are connected to and harmed by someone else. What is the actual connection and harm someone has endured (or would endure) due to gay marriage? |
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying every law we have on the books is somehow a result of someone claiming harm? On another line, are you saying that the only way to answer an ethical argument is to view the problem from the point of "harm"? |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 08:14:18 PM · #692 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The fundamental question remains, how is society injured by Gay marriage; and is that injury sufficient to justify a bar to this legal institution (marriage) to certain subset of citizens (homosexuals) who are breaking no law? |
That's the liberty argument and you have to take it whole. If I can post some case where people say "whoa", then the argument falls apart. |
But Doc, while you can find people who say, "whoa" to gay marriage based on their personal beliefs, you'd probably have a difficult time finding people who would have any legal standing to say, "whoa". Standing in a legal sense is not proven by protesting, it is proven by demonstrating that you are connected to and harmed by someone else. What is the actual connection and harm someone has endured (or would endure) due to gay marriage? |
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying every law we have on the books is somehow a result of someone claiming harm? On another line, are you saying that the only way to answer an ethical argument is to view the problem from the point of "harm"? |
Actually, I am viewing this ethical question primarily from the point of view that each group deserves the same rights as the other. In this instance I was just addressing what I perceived to be an argument against gay people having the right to marry because some other unrelated people might object, that is where the claim of harm & standing becomes relevant.
Then again, I might have just gotten confused about where the argument was given all of the hunting licenses that were thrown around :P Anyhow, I have to do some chores & go to bed, so I'll leave it to the rest of you to solve this problem by sunrise. ;)
|
|
|
|
11/11/2008 08:15:50 PM · #693 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying every law we have on the books is somehow a result of someone claiming harm? On another line, are you saying that the only way to answer an ethical argument is to view the problem from the point of "harm"? |
To get any case before a court of law, your first step is to prove standing, claiming that they individually have been injured by an individual or the application of a specific law, and prove that your injury is greater than the benefits to others that come from the law. Any law that is still on the books has probably been tested by that standard at one time or another.
Ethics and morality are a far more subtle issue. The law is a fairly blunt tool. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 08:17:16 PM · #694 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by JMart:
RonB, I'm sure you're correct that allowing gay people to have equal protection under the law with regard to marriage can, and likely will, have a wide reaching impact. I disagree, however, that any group of people being discriminated against should be delayed in gaining their civil liberties.
Is there a good reason why we deny gay people equal protection? |
The Supreme Court ruling in California says that California did deny gay people equal protection, specifically on the basis that the ONLY term used to define heterosexual marriage was, well, "marriage"; heterosexuals were not permitted to enter into "domestic partnerships" - therefore, that term MUST be available to same-sex unions as well. The Judiciary could just as easily have ruled that the "domestic partnership" law was unconstitutional, in that it did not permit heterosexuals to register as a "domestic partnership" ( unless one of them was over the age of 62, for some reason ).
IF the California Legislature were to change the law such that henceforth all legal unions would be called "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions", then the term "marriage" could be reserved for religious "marriages" only, without violating California's Equal Protection clause - because legal unions would all have the same name regardless of the gender(s) of the members of that union. But then, they would have to change the "domestic partnership" law to permit heterosexual unions. |
The trouble with this is the definition of "religious 'marriages'". Upon which religion are we going to confer the ability to decide what is religiously acceptable and what is not. The answer, of course, has to be "none of them". The state can not make such religious determinations without running afoul of the establishment clause in the US Constitution. |
Does the state decide what type of baptism is acceptable? dunking? sprinkling?
Does the state decide what type of garment the pastor/priest/bishop/etc will wear at a funeral service?
No, of course not.
By the same token, the "STATE" would not make ANY religious determination as to what is religiously acceptable. The establishment clause would not be applicable.
People could be married in the eyes of the Catholic church but NOT in the eyes of the Lutheran church; they could be considered married by the Jews but not by the Episcopalians. Married by the Baptists but not by the Mormons. Each religion for itself. Isn't that the way it is now, anyway? If you're Catholic and get divorced by the state and remarry in a Baptist church, but do not have your "marriage" annulled by the Catholic church, then in the eyes of the Catholic church, you are an adulterer, because you're still "married" to your previous wife.
Originally posted by JMart:
Why do anti-gay marriage people care about the word marriage? Because it means something more to them than civil union. If heterosexual people have access to that coveted label and homosexual people are denied it, then we have a clear inequality with regard to how the law treats these groups of people. |
Not so. From a "rights" perspective, the "law" could treat all couples the same with different identifiers - except for THE ONE BIG right - which is to all have the same identifier. That was the basis of the finding of the Supreme Court of California. But the "common identifier" doesn't have to be that "coveted label" - it could be a label like "civil union" or "domestic partnership".
Originally posted by JMart:
If the word marriage is too saturated in rich religious tradition to allow gay people to use it then it's up to the religious community to attempt to replace the word marriage with civil union for everyone regardless of sex or sexual preference. Until that time, gay people are not getting the equal treatment required by the 14th amendment. That is, unless you want to argue that the word "marriage" holds no value. |
You are arguing based on the wrong Constitution. There has been NO determination by the U.S. Supreme Court on interpreting the 14th amendment vis-a-vis gay marriage. If there had been, then the federal DOMA would have either found to be perfectly constitutional, in which case gay marriage would be kicked back to the states and nothing would change, or it would have been struck down as being unconstitutional and there would be lots of noise througout the country.
The California decision was a STATE decision, not a federal decision, and it was based on California law, not federal law. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 09:01:31 PM · #695 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying every law we have on the books is somehow a result of someone claiming harm? On another line, are you saying that the only way to answer an ethical argument is to view the problem from the point of "harm"? |
To get any case before a court of law, your first step is to prove standing, claiming that they individually have been injured by an individual or the application of a specific law, and prove that your injury is greater than the benefits to others that come from the law. Any law that is still on the books has probably been tested by that standard at one time or another.
Ethics and morality are a far more subtle issue. The law is a fairly blunt tool. |
Thanks. I didn't know this and have learned some stuff from your post and the wiki on "Standing". It seems to me though that standing is needed to attempt to strike a law down, but standing isn't needed to make a law. In other words, people who are for defining marriage as "man and woman" do not need to show standing in order to pass the law. Am I correct? |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 09:03:24 PM · #696 |
I ended up just going and reading a description of the Golden rule (The DrAchoo first told me about a few months ago as a term in its own right) and also the general ethics of reciprocity. I'm not sure how you can hold one of these fundamental and want to go out of your way to impose the sorts of pain described earlier. I just plain don't understand.
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 21:22:59. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 09:08:17 PM · #697 |
| The historical argument doesn't hold up. "Marriage" and "Love" mean different things in different societies. They are dependent on the underlying culture. Plenty of cultures have had polygamous marriages, marriages with separate loving relationships, homosexual loving relationships, and/or no marriage at all. The point is that marriage changes to fit the culture. I'm not making a liberty argument. My argument is that the culture has already changed sufficiently that people of the same sex are in love and married in all but name. The people who want to prevent gay marriage are not keeping a culture from changing. They are denying a culture that has already changed. They are not monsters, just like the racists of the nineteenth century were not monsters. They were just wrong. They just hadn't seen enough to open their eyes. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 09:47:16 PM · #698 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I ended up just going and reading a description of the Golden rule (The DrAchoo first told me about a few months ago as a term in its own right) and also the general ethics of reciprocity. I'm not sure how you can hold one of these fundamental and want to go out of your way to impose the sorts of pain described earlier. I just plain don't understand. |
If you are speaking to me directly you'll have to remember that I'm not against rights for gays and I am all for either a parallel form of union with equal rights (say domestic partnership) or even just calling everybody "civil union" and leaving the term "marriage" to the churches. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 09:49:29 PM · #699 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I ended up just going and reading a description of the Golden rule (The DrAchoo first told me about a few months ago as a term in its own right) and also the general ethics of reciprocity. I'm not sure how you can hold one of these fundamental and want to go out of your way to impose the sorts of pain described earlier. I just plain don't understand. |
If you are speaking to me directly you'll have to remember that I'm not against rights for gays and I am all for either a parallel form of union with equal rights (say domestic partnership) or even just calling everybody "civil union" and leaving the term "marriage" to the churches. |
I wasn't speaking to you directly. I guess I'm 'speaking' to half of California |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 09:49:40 PM · #700 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Plenty of cultures have had polygamous marriages, marriages with separate loving relationships, homosexual loving relationships, and/or no marriage at all. The point is that marriage changes to fit the culture. |
OK, 'humous. I'm going to hold you to it. Name three cultures that had homosexual marriage more than, say, fifty years ago. (I'm half wondering if you were sneaky with your wording and included the word "marriage" in all phrases above except the homosexual one on purpose)
EDIT to add: Just to make sure, I'm not talking about homosexuality alone. I'm well aware this has been described for millenia. I'm talking marriage.
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 21:51:47. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 11:42:55 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 11:42:55 AM EDT.
|
