Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

11/13/2008 06:42:55 PM · #876

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Mousie:
Nobody has addressed by question about sacredness.

How can the sacred truly be sacred if it's at the whim of popular appeal?

It isn't and that's why when we step into the religious argument realm it doesn't matter what arguments are presented the answer is simply "it's wrong". That's not nearly as fun a conversation, but it still stands. The majority of Christianity (just speaking about the religion I'm most versed in) views homosexuality as wrong and thus the idea of "gay marriage" is simply a non sequitur. Marriage is a sacred union between man, woman and God and the idea of altering this to allow a relationship viewed as wrong would indeed destroy the sacredness of the concept.

You'll have to again divorce this line of thought from the rest of my argument which has come from a secular point of view where marriage is not sacred but rather a legal institution. "Sacred" ("devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated." per dictionary.com's first definition) doesn't make sense in this realm.

Sorry, your train of thought is not the only one on the rails. I am asking my own questions and hilighting my own issues of interest.

And I am telling you that my marriage is sacred because I believe it is, having providing two dictionary definitions that support my assertion. The only thing I have left out is an explicit deference to any higher power.

You seem to be suggesting that I do not have the right or ability to make a sacred vow, because other people say so. That is not freedom of religion.

So, instead of trying to refocus me on the civil aspects, you will have to address my direct questions and explain why 'sacred' is at the whim of popular appeal, justify why I should not be allowed to make a sacred vow because I'm gay, concede that I have an argument that completely undermines the conservative claim on the sanctity of marriage, or beg off answering me entirely.

Still awaiting a response...

Oh sorry Mousie, I'll break my work time to respond to you.

Per definition #4 (Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person:). Only you can make that call as to whether you are dedicated. I'll take you at your word so I have no beef with you calling your union sacred with this definition.
Per definition #5 (Worthy of respect; venerable). There are parts of your union I can deem as qualifying. Your monogamy and dedication is worthy of respect and veneration. However, as I ultimately disagree with the practice of homosexuality, there is an obvious portion that I would personally think fails this definition. I know that sounds harsh and hurtful and old fashioned and bigoted. I'm afraid, however, it's my opinion. It doesn't mean we can't have a cup of coffee or I wouldn't treat you as a patient (I actually had the cutest little 15 month old three weeks ago with two dads), it just means I don't agree with your union on those grounds as being "sacred" per this definition. And lest someone suddenly jump on me again, it doesn't mean I don't think Mousie deserves protection under the law.

There comes a point where two thought out positions can be ultimately non-compatible. We can, however, treat each other with civility. You may respond, "you aren't being civil because you aren't letting me get married", but I'd reply, "you aren't being civil because you are using a sacred word (ie religious) in a non-sacred manner".

11/13/2008 06:48:45 PM · #877

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Mousie:
I am waiting with bated breath for DrAchoo to concede that his 'constancy of marriage' argument is completely false. If he can't bring himself to do it, I'm no longer going to debate him, and that's a shame, because all the other conservatives seem to have been run off.

I'll respectfully refuse to concede. I'll quote again the New York Court of Appeals. Not because they add credibility to the argument, but because it's more eloquent than i could say.

The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

I'll say to the people above who deny that the term "marriage" has 99.9999% of the time across all cultures meant a union between genders are simply in denial.

Nice straw man you just shot down. Who has said that heterosexual marriage isn't in the overwhelming majority? Wait for it... nobody!

You get one more chance before I lose complete respect for your willingness to debate constructively, because all I'm seeing now is a stubborn refusal to address direct challenges that you can't meet, apparently. I simply did not suggest that the majority of marriage hasn't been between heterosexuals, and I don't believe it either. It is obvious that this is the case, and it's frankly insulting that you have presented my position as one that would deny it. Instead, I contested your statement that marrige has been CONSTANT for millennia and is uniform across ALL cultures. You are WRONG.

Let me try to clarify. Are you denying that there is a well documented history of marriage changing over time, even for heterosexuals? My own assertion is that marriage HAS changed, and that there is documentation to prove it. You've "respectfully refused to concede" this point.

Are you denying that, even today, in many parts of the world marriage is NOT the 'one man one woman' definition you cling to so vehemently? You've "respectfully refused to concede" this point as well, and even did a little bait and switch, suddenly shifting your position to support 'oppostite genders' instead of 'one man one woman'. I see what you did there!

Not so surprisingly, even that last little dodge is ill thought out! Given that polygamy is practiced in many parts of the world... and that a man may legally have multiple wives and they are all related by marriage, by defnintion there are same-sex partners in such relationships, which invalidates the very premise that 'opposite gender' alone is where it's at, historically. That is, unless you make the arbitrary distinction that each component marriage is discreet (which is easily disproved when you look at the actual practices of polygamists themselves, in many such cultural arragements the wives refer to their 'competition' as wives). In any case that's bigamy, not polygamy, and YOU are the one so apparently nitpicky about precise definitions.

Anyway, let's get constructive. How many documented examples of the variable definiton of marriage, today and throughout history, will it take for you to concede? Pick a number. I will do the work FOR you and provide them, if only to see you eat crow. They are LEGION.

Willfull ignorance in support of a stance REALLY freakin' aggrivates me. I am sick and tired of debating against EASILY DISPROVABLE CLAIMS OVER AND OVER. Factual claims, not moral claims, not opinions... incorrect FACTUAL claims! Everyone here who has commented on it has called you out on your assertion by simply denying it's truth, which can be verified.

Hey! Those who have already disagreed with his statement on the constancy of marriage, would you be willing to lighten my load and dig up examples yourselves? It will be EASY. Try it!

Also, I apologize for being a bit strident in this post, but holy cow, this is crap! I am offended that my (and everyone else's!) position is being so grossly misrepresented to avoid addressing my points, and my impression of the integrity of this debate has completely plummeted. This, in turn, has loosened my tongue. Sorry about that.

Message edited by author 2008-11-13 19:12:43.

11/13/2008 06:59:27 PM · #878

Originally posted by RonB:

Doc asked about the effect of the laws in California, not New Jersey. I'm presuming that the denial of benefits in New Jersey would be viewed in light of their laws, not those of California.

Okay Mr. Smarty pants... then explain to me why my rights evaporate at the border because of DOMA? I do NOT have the same set of rights as marriage. I DO NOT. You can keep saying it over and over, but I DO NOT, as enshriend in LAW. Since all states recognize all marriages that can legally be performed in that state itself... heterosexual marriage has undeniably MORE rights, since those rights are guaranteed to be recognized in all 50 states. MINE ARE NOT. Even my GAY marraige, as it stands until DOMA is struck, suffers the same limitations, and I will not rest until I am TRULY equal.

11/13/2008 07:11:54 PM · #879

You get too worked up Mousie. It doesn't help your arguing and only leads to you falling into traps and pitfalls.

Regarding the "constancy of marriage", look at it this way.

Over the years there have been squares of all sizes and shapes. Some are big. Some are small. Some are red. Some are green. However, nobody has ever argued that a rectangle is a square. The fact that a square has four equal sides has been constant forever.

The fact that marriage has been between "man and woman" (and I have NEVER said "ONE man and ONE woman" because I obviously know this not to be true. You can try to find a quote above where I did, but you won't because I'm not stupid when it comes to debate) is the "four equal sides" of marriage. In the history of the term it has always meant as such. We have, so far, one odd instance where it isn't (see Nero and his eunuch), but it is rare and worthy of mention for the very fact it is so odd compared to the rest of the time the word is used. Hadrian wasn't married to his lover and the two saints were apparently united in a ceremony known as "adelphopoeisis" (sp?)

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/13/2008 07:13:57 PM · #880

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Over the years there have been squares of all sizes and shapes. Some are big. Some are small. Some are red. Some are green. However, nobody has ever argued that a rectangle is a square.

Of course it is. Did you not study maths at all? An equilateral rectangle is a square.

Message edited by author 2008-11-13 19:15:38.

11/13/2008 07:24:37 PM · #881

Originally posted by Mousie:

Even my GAY marraige, as it stands until DOMA is struck, suffers the same limitations, and I will not rest until I am TRULY equal.

And thus I ask what the harm of Prop 8 is IF California has equal domestic partnership laws?

11/13/2008 07:25:12 PM · #882

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Over the years there have been squares of all sizes and shapes. Some are big. Some are small. Some are red. Some are green. However, nobody has ever argued that a rectangle is a square.

Of course it is. Did you not study maths at all? An equilateral rectangle is a square.

Sorry, duh, my bad there. I should have said a rectangle with two pairs of unequal sides.

Message edited by author 2008-11-13 19:26:10.

11/13/2008 07:28:04 PM · #883

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Over the years there have been squares of all sizes and shapes. Some are big. Some are small. Some are red. Some are green. However, nobody has ever argued that a rectangle is a square. The fact that a square has four equal sides has been constant forever.

Many rectangles ARE squares. All squares ARE rectangles. There, I just did what you said nobody would do, and I did it elegantly. Total analogy failure.

And again, why not answer my challenge directly?

How many examples will it take for you to concede that the defnintion of marriage has changed, historically? How many will it take for you to concede that marriage has many different definitions in many different cultures, and is not a constant as you assert? I am not going to drop this!

How many?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The fact that marriage has been between "man and woman" (and I have NEVER said "ONE man and ONE woman" because I obviously know this not to be true. You can try to find a quote above where I did, but you won't because I'm not stupid when it comes to debate) is the "four equal sides" of marriage. In the history of the term it has always meant as such. We have, so far, one odd instance where it isn't (see Nero and his eunuch), but it is rare and worthy of mention for the very fact it is so odd compared to the rest of the time the word is used. Hadrian wasn't married to his lover and the two saints were apparently united in a ceremony known as "adelphopoeisis" (sp?)

Are you seriously trying to suggest that 'man and woman' is a superset of 'man and woman', 'man and woman and woman', and 'man and man and woman'? I can't see any other legitimate interpretation of your words.

And why do you completely ignore my point that 'man and woman and woman' by defintion means TWO WOMEN ARE MARRIED?

If Eric and I pick out a sexy chick to be part of our relationship, are we legit, now? Does that validate our relationship as two men (in the eyes of the lord, if not the law) just because we now have the 'woman' side of the equation?

Please!

Message edited by author 2008-11-13 19:30:07.

11/13/2008 07:29:26 PM · #884

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Mousie:
Even my GAY marraige, as it stands until DOMA is struck, suffers the same limitations, and I will not rest until I am TRULY equal.

And thus I ask what the harm of Prop 8 is IF California has equal domestic partnership laws?

Ever heard of a stepping stone? They're awfully useful when you want to get someplace difficult.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

11/13/2008 07:39:55 PM · #885

Originally posted by Mousie:

And why do you completely ignore my point that 'man and woman and woman' by defintion means TWO WOMEN ARE MARRIED?

I'm fairly sure Torah would not consider one woman to have any legal rights of inheritance, for example, if another woman in the polygamous marriage dies. They would remain with the husband. And if the husband dies, the inheritance would actually go to a brother before it goes to either wife. So I think technically if you put bars to denote legal relationships (whatever that means) in ancient polygamy you'd have bars radiating away from the man, but not between women. I'm open to evidence otherwise however.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/13/2008 07:40:15 PM · #886

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by RonB:
Doc asked about the effect of the laws in California, not New Jersey. I'm presuming that the denial of benefits in New Jersey would be viewed in light of their laws, not those of California.

Okay Mr. Smarty pants... then explain to me why my rights evaporate at the border because of DOMA? I do NOT have the same set of rights as marriage. I DO NOT. You can keep saying it over and over, but I DO NOT, as enshriend in LAW. Since all states recognize all marriages that can legally be performed in that state itself... heterosexual marriage has undeniably MORE rights, since those rights are guaranteed to be recognized in all 50 states. MINE ARE NOT. Even my GAY marraige, as it stands until DOMA is struck, suffers the same limitations, and I will not rest until I am TRULY equal.

Your rights MAY evaporate when you leave California regardless of whether you are in a domestic partnership, civil union, or gay marriage, because that is currently the LAW under DOMA. Other states MAY offer you the same rights as heterosexual unions or may NOT, but they cannot be compelled to do so under DOMA. The same is NOT true for heterosexual marriages. But I seriously doubt that you really needed to have that "explained" to you.

If you are looking for an explanation of WHY that is the law, or why the law was crafted the way it was, then you are asking the wrong person. I wasn't involved in the discussions, nor have I read all of the documents and testimony related to crafting that legislation. But then, it doesn't affect me. Since it does affect you, perhaps you should take the time to research that. OR, you could find a flaw in the Federal Income Tax Code that proves that you or you and Eric are NOT being given equal treatment under the law, and challenge DOMA on a constitutional basis, the same way someone challenged the California Code - and won.

As Doc said, it would appear that within California, you would have the same rights under a domestic partnership as you would under a marriage. But, you are correct, outside of California you do NOT have the same rights - UNLESS the state you set foot in recognizes your union in accordance with ITS laws. And that is true whether your union is called marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, or any other nom de jour.

Since DOMA is fact, the question remains unanswered -
By being "married" in California, what rights would you be entitled to either within California or in any of the other 49 States that you would not have by registering a "domestic partnership" in California? Are there any?
If not, then it really does distill down to an argument about the use of a word, and not about legal rights ( except for the legal right to APPLY that word - which is what the California Supreme Court ruled you were entitled to do, and which the people of the state voted to say you future gay unions were NOT entitled to do ).

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/13/2008 08:04:08 PM · #887

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This culture gets to define marriage for itself (through the vehicle of law), just as every culture gets to do so. No historical precedents are necessary. The only reason to exclude same-sex marriage is because you believe something is wrong with that sort of union. You believe that, in some way, a loving relationship between two people of the same sex is "less than" a heterosexual relationship. You want to legislate that belief. Or, to be fair, you want to retain the legislation that already enforces this belief.

The only part of your argument that is flawed is this attempt to say that there is a way to defend Proposition 8 and similar legislation without discriminating against homosexuals in any way. It's your own predisposition against homosexual behavior that makes you blind to the fact that the laws you defend discriminate against homosexuals by not allowing them to marry each other. It requires a distinct lack of empathy with homosexuals not to realize how that belittles and disrespects them.

David Ey

Nikon D80

11/13/2008 08:15:25 PM · #888

Is there nothing in this whole wide world you would not belittle and disrespect? Is everything everyone does a-ok with you?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/13/2008 08:23:58 PM · #889

Originally posted by posthumous:

This culture gets to define marriage for itself (through the vehicle of law), just as every culture gets to do so. No historical precedents are necessary.

A simple illustration:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

The official Mormon Church (Church of Latter-Day Saints) renounced polygamy some time ago...

LDS founders once used religion to justify polygamy, then did a complete about-face and turned to excommunicating those who practiced it. Likewise, the very same arguments of religious morality used to justify discrimination against homosexuals were once used to discriminate against minorities, and women before that. This too shall pass, and just as people now claim the bible doesn't "really" condone slavery, the next generation will think it absurd that their religion ever really supported discrimination against homosexuals.

11/13/2008 08:32:17 PM · #890

Originally posted by RonB:

I find it rather interesting that you would take the time to explain this to me... since that is my own POINT. You have paraphrased me with a succinct description of why anything but full marriage equality is inherently unequal, since... 'the same is not true for heterosexual marriages'. 'The same is not true' == not equal.

Thanks!

And not every situation distills down to one simple factor. Nice try. This is a matter of equal rights. It's a matter of law. I would even say it is a matter of faith, since I feel religious rights are being voilated, even though I do not prostrate myself to a supernatural higher power. I'm talking about the rights of those churches that support gay marriage.

I will try to get back to you with specific, non New Jersey, Californian examples of where the rights of gays are not equal, since you are correct, I have not answered that. But I do so under duress, since that buys into your premise that you can separate the state from the federal, which I don't believe is the case. However, I know that rights have been denied here in CA despite domestic partnership law, I just don't have them on the tip of my tongue and don't want to misspeak.

Of course, there's always the simple, obvious one... domestic partner law does not allow gays the right to be legally married by their church, a right held by straights.

11/13/2008 08:32:56 PM · #891

Everyone knows that I can argue until I'm blue in the face. That may be a good trait or a bad one. I'm going to bow out again instead of going back and forth over the same arguments. I figure in the end the repeated statement of my position may only cause hurt feelings and that's not what I want. I'd be open, however, to new avenues of discussion or other questions if someone wants to understand the "other side".

Until next time!

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

11/13/2008 08:40:49 PM · #892

I've got a few distractions in life at the moment that have prevented me from participating in the discussion in full. However, this remains an interesting discussion.

I have seen no strong logical argument against the concept that there should be prohibited a legal relationship between any two people - a man and woman, a same sex couple (or for that matter a related couple). This need not be a relationship based upon sexual relations (to discount some of the incest arguments), but would recognise the multiplicity of ways in which humans can build close social bonds.

There is a lot of emotive rhetoric on what "marriage" means in a socio-religious context. There is no point trying to pretend that this rests upon an entirely logically precise construct. No society is without a cultural tradition of some sort that underpins the established rules in its current social moral framework. Modern Western society has a strong history of marriage = 1 man + 1 woman. However, this is not to say that there is any fundamental truth to this (unless one is a religious literalist) and different societies approach the topic with different social mores (polyandry being one of the more fascinating to me).

Societies can and do change - we appear to be going through a period of change in which Victorian attitudes to homosexuality (and to sexuality in general) are being challenged and overturned as greater respect is accorded to the individual and the concept of equal human rights. Where there are biological differences that make true equality difficult, modern morality often requires a similarity in the end-result, even if that forces us to tweak the "means" to that end-result (eg in women's rights). Given these movements, equality of gay-rights is (I would say) inevitable.

The main obstacles to gay rights are political and religious conservatism (by which I mean a resistance to reinterpretation or change). The fact is that with increased wealth and education most Modern Western societies are becoming "progressive" and less defined by religious concepts of morality - but the USA and Ireland are significant exceptions. While Ireland is subject to the ameliorating influence of the EU, it should come as no surprise that there is such a strong debate in the USA. I am confident, however, that this (as with all things) will progress - the only question is "how soon"?

Message edited by author 2008-11-13 20:43:26.

11/13/2008 08:44:27 PM · #893

I'm going to stick to my premise that state and federal law are irrevocably intertwined.

- For federal income tax purposes, the test of taxability is ownership.
- Ownership, however, is determined by state law.
- According to California state law, domestic partners own community property equally and the earned income of a domestic partner is community property.

Therefore, since Federal law does not allow me to report an equal share of our community property, California's domestic partnership law does not provide me the same rights as those of a heterosexual couple, in seeming contradicition to the stated rules.

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

11/13/2008 08:50:50 PM · #894

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

There is no back and forth when you flatly refuse to address the simple points that I have repeated over and over. That is not dialogue.

Either support your assertions, or stop making them.

To wit:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't think it's absurd to say it's not bias because of a definition [of marriage] if the definition has existed for literally millenia across all cultures.

How many examples will it take for you to concede that the defnintion of marriage has changed, historically? How many will it take for you to concede that marriage has many different definitions in many different cultures, and is not a constant as you assert?

How many?

I have proposed a constructive framework to move this 'debate' forward, but you have chosen not to meet me on this field. Why is that?

Message edited by author 2008-11-13 21:09:58.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/13/2008 08:55:51 PM · #895

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm fairly sure Torah would not consider one woman to have any legal rights of inheritance, for example, if another woman in the polygamous marriage dies.

Excuse me, but WTF does what Torah says have to do with 21st Century California Statutes?

The law is based on the Constitution, and any laws are subject to it, and is specifically forbidden from being based on any particular religious tenet.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/13/2008 10:13:57 PM · #896

Originally posted by David Ey:

Is there nothing in this whole wide world you would not belittle and disrespect? Is everything everyone does a-ok with you?

No, everything is not a-ok with me. But homosexuality is. I want people who are against homosexuality to admit it instead of hiding behind a supposed word definition. This includes Sarah Palin. But also Joe Biden and Barack Obama and Bill Clinton and other mock liberals need to take a stand one way or the other.

11/13/2008 10:37:18 PM · #897

Originally posted by Mousie:

Sigh. Because you aren't listening to me?

Despite my blunder with stating the square analogy, it still holds. You have apparently shown me many definitions of marriage in many different cultures. They ALL, with the exception of our buddy Nero, involve at least one member of each sex. So, I am stating once again that the fact that in history marriage has involved opposite sexes is as steadfast and constant as squares having "four equal sides".

You did attempt to bring up polygamy to point out that two people of the same gender are "married". I countered that by my understanding the same-sex members of the marriage were viewed differently toward each other than to their husband. As example, in Judaism and Mormonism, the two cultures I at least know best that practiced polygamy, it would be still considered reprehensible for two of the wives to have sex with each other despite the fact they are in the same "marriage". Also, because we have been talking about marriage and the legal rights that go along, I pointed out that wives of such marriages did not enjoy some of the basic rights we now do with regard to each other (when one wife dies, the other wife does not have a claim on her property as inheritance). So, to answer your question, no, if you and Erick get a hot chick to go along with ya, it doesn't somehow make your marriage "sacred" in my eyes.

So while you claim many, many examples of how marriage has changed, I somehow remain unconvinced.

Message edited by author 2008-11-13 22:46:46.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/13/2008 11:30:51 PM · #898

Originally posted by Mousie:

I have no idea where you got the idea that for federal income tax purposes the test of taxability is ownership. Ownership of WHAT? It's income tax.
As far as I knew, for federal income tax purposes, the test of taxability was, well, income, whether wages, interest, dividends, capital gains, inheritance, or gaming or lottery winnings. All income. Nothing to do with ownership of anything ( other than the income, that is ). The federal government does NOT tax anyone on the stocks they own, or on their car(s), or their camera(s) or their house(es). Only on income, earned or otherwise obtained. That's why Warren Buffet can legitimately claim that his tax rate is lower than his secretary's - because his only income is from long-term capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than wages.

But even ownership is not ultimately a state's sole determination - rather, it is a federal determination. The due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution specifically state that one cannot be deprived of property without due process, and that ( due process ) applies at both the federal level ( 5th amendment ) and at the state level ( 14th amendment ). Property rights rulings by municipal and state courts can be appealed to federal courts, which are ultimately responsible for determining who held ownership and if rights were violated.

And finally, in California the community property laws in effect for a domestic partnership are the same as for a marriage, whether heterosexual or gay. It is only at the federal level that community income must be reported separately by the individuals in the union.
Because of the FEDERAL DOMA, California CANNOT grant you the same federal income tax reporting rights as heterosexual married couples. Even California's short live MARRIAGE ruling did not, and could not provide you the same rights as those of a heterosexual couple. There is no difference.

But then, you already know all of what I just wrote. You're just tossing out stuff to make it "seem" that a California marriage grants you more rights that a California domestic partnership - OTHER than the one right of calling the union a marriage. So far, I see absolutely no difference.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III