Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

10/14/2008 05:02:14 PM · #76

Originally posted by Melethia:

Mousie, you're getting married on Friday. I know Prop 8 is very important to you, but so is your ceremony, and that alone should be plenty to stress over! :-) So do yourself, your husband, and your families a favor and let this rest for a few days. Concentrate on your wedding. Most of all, ENJOY IT!! And don't forget you promised to share pictures. Now go stress over all the stuff that needs to be ready by Friday! (And best wishes to both of you on your big day, too.)

I know I know... I already have so much stress that I'm falling apart physically. Just three more days!

I'll hope I can stay quiet until later on, since right now it feels like half the state is out to get me, and that doesn't help my wedding/work stress at all, even though I'm taking two weeks off from work to relax! Unfortunately, I feel like now is the time to convice people... now is when it matters most. So no promises!

Thanks for the kind words. I'll try to be good! :)

Message edited by author 2008-10-14 17:02:34.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

10/14/2008 05:06:28 PM · #77

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by posthumous:
That would be fine if you could just snap your fingers and make it happen, but like I said in a previous post, it's not really an argument about a word. The word is being used to hide people's real positions.

I could not agree with you any more.

True but who cares about their positions. They are entitled to them, right? Though I do agree it is a game (of deeper wierdness)to hide behind but as long as it doesn't affect the true fundamental concept of a union their game is a joke. It's a loser of a game and since their beliefs ultimately have no power of the situation...outside of owning the word let them go on their silly way.

The second these positions have an actual, unfair or negative affect on your life...I'll shout with you but it seems like a non-event.

Doesn't look like they care too much about it.

eta:Peter-Mazel tov!

Now, back to my sandwich...

Message edited by author 2008-10-14 17:37:30.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/14/2008 05:23:32 PM · #78

Originally posted by citymars:

Btw, in the U.S., after a couple is married in a church ceremony, don't they still have to sign a "state" document, with witnesses, to be legally married?

Nope, at least when i got married in '88. The "state" stuff is all done preceding the vows, If you don't have the license and the needed witnesses, the ceremony can not take place. It is the exchange of vows that finalize the contract. All the legal stuff has to be taken care of before you can have the right to stand at the altar. After the exchange of vows, signatures are taken to swear that the vows were exchanged, but marriage is the only contract that takes place in a church.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

10/14/2008 06:28:22 PM · #79

The earliest ideas of marriage being a covenant or official union between two individual are clearly religious. "Civil marriage" only came later as an outgrowth. So, to argue that the conversation should be devoid of theology is to deny the origins and roots of the concept.

That being said, a civil marriage is merely that which is defined by the society in question. If a society wants to define marriage as between two consenting individuals regardless of gender, then so be it. However, if the society wants to define it as between man and woman, likewise, so be it. If one disagrees, then they can a) try to change it, b) move to a different area with a definition one agrees with or c) accept it. I fail to understand the moral arguments that one is being wronged if the society has made an arbitrary decision that goes against how they personally feel. I have never seen marriage covered under any argument of human rights. Certainly it can be inconvenient and can cause difficulty in life, but society makes lots of these arbitrary decisions which do so. Personhood (ie. an individual who possesses human rights), currently, is not afforded to all fetuses. This is quite inconvenient for the aborted fetus. However, nobody can make the argument that they are being legally wronged because the current arbitrary laws of our society say so.

I would be interested in hearing the ethical or moral argument for gay marriage distilled down to its bare essentials that are not based simply on a principle of liberty. (We have lots of precedent to limit liberty so without a follow-up argument I cannot see how liberty cannot be limited in this case.)

Louis

Nikon D800

10/14/2008 06:58:29 PM · #80

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I fail to understand the moral arguments that one is being wronged if the society has made an arbitrary decision that goes against how they personally feel.

I suppose it would be okay with you, then, if you were denied equal protection under current tax legislation, should society suddenly decide that practicing Christians could no longer claim the same tax benefits as non-believers.

A decision to actively make a class of citizens less equal than another class, even if that equality is strictly limited to tax legislation -- and it is not -- is not arbitrary. It's illegal under your constitution.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I would be interested in hearing the ethical or moral argument for gay marriage distilled down to its bare essentials that are not based simply on a principle of liberty.

It isn't a question of liberty, it's a question of equality.

10/14/2008 07:22:54 PM · #81

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by citymars:
Btw, in the U.S., after a couple is married in a church ceremony, don't they still have to sign a "state" document, with witnesses, to be legally married?

Nope, at least when i got married in '88. The "state" stuff is all done preceding the vows, If you don't have the license and the needed witnesses, the ceremony can not take place. It is the exchange of vows that finalize the contract. All the legal stuff has to be taken care of before you can have the right to stand at the altar. After the exchange of vows, signatures are taken to swear that the vows were exchanged, but marriage is the only contract that takes place in a church.

I guess it depends. Here in Michigan, after the ceremony, the bride, groom, officiant and two witnesses have to sign the license to legally validate the marriage.

10/14/2008 07:27:53 PM · #82

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That being said, a civil marriage is merely that which is defined by the society in question. If a society wants to define marriage as between two consenting individuals regardless of gender, then so be it. However, if the society wants to define it as between man and woman, likewise, so be it. If one disagrees, then they can a) try to change it, b) move to a different area with a definition one agrees with or c) accept it. I fail to understand the moral arguments that one is being wronged if the society has made an arbitrary decision that goes against how they personally feel. I have never seen marriage covered under any argument of human rights. Certainly it can be inconvenient and can cause difficulty in life, but society makes lots of these arbitrary decisions which do so. Personhood (ie. an individual who possesses human rights), currently, is not afforded to all fetuses. This is quite inconvenient for the aborted fetus. However, nobody can make the argument that they are being legally wronged because the current arbitrary laws of our society say so.

You could use your same argument to justify any prejudicial treatment of just about any class or sub class of person. As an example, restricting the discussion to marriage, your argument could be used to ban marriage between a mixed race couple.

10/14/2008 07:36:36 PM · #83

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

You could. However, I still do not hear a moral argument against. Our society has moved "beyond" worrying about mixed race marriages. Perhaps we will do so with gay marriage. Currently we have not.

Let me put it another way, and Louis may have attempted to answer this already. What moral argument postulates that a society does not have the right to decide to limit a marriage to that between a man and a woman?

I think Louis is arguing that the constituion claims equality for all. He can flesh this out a little more if he wants, but we can think of many instances where adults are considered equal but not allowed to do certain things. A 20-year-old is an adult with regard to the law, but they are not allowed to purchase alcohol. Is this unconstitutional? My question, in other words, is how is limiting the purchase of alcohol different from limiting gay marriage? I would further point out, that as obtuse as Hawkeye can be at times, he hit on the point that we are not discriminating against a class of people but against an act. We aren't preventing a group of people from marriage at large, we are rather preventing all people from marrying within their gender. I think constitutionally those would be two very different matters.

10/14/2008 07:49:18 PM · #84

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You could use your same argument to justify any prejudicial treatment of just about any class or sub class of person. As an example, restricting the discussion to marriage, your argument could be used to ban marriage between a mixed race couple.

You could. However, I still do not hear a moral argument against. Our society has moved "beyond" worrying about mixed race marriages. Perhaps we will do so with gay marriage. Currently we have not.

Let me put it another way, and Louis may have attempted to answer this already. What moral argument postulates that a society does not have the right to decide to limit a marriage to that between a man and a woman?

I think Louis is arguing that the constituion claims equality for all. He can flesh this out a little more if he wants, but we can think of many instances where adults are considered equal but not allowed to do certain things. A 20-year-old is an adult with regard to the law, but they are not allowed to purchase alcohol. Is this unconstitutional? My question, in other words, is how is limiting the purchase of alcohol different from limiting gay marriage? I would further point out, that as obtuse as Hawkeye can be at times, he hit on the point that we are not discriminating against a class of people but against an act. We aren't preventing a group of people from marriage at large, we are rather preventing all people from marrying within their gender. I think constitutionally those would be two very different matters.

Simply because society has "moved beyond" worrying about mixed race marriages doesn't mean that society was right to legislate against them in the first place.

It used to be illegal for blacks to sit in the front of the bus. Doesn't make that morally right one day and unacceptable the next.

It's different from a 20 year old buying booze because buying booze is an "age of consent" issue and it's not a permanent ban on EVER buying booze, just a limitation. That 20 year old can go into the party store and buy all the booze he wants on his 21st birthday.

Message edited by author 2008-10-14 19:54:04.

10/14/2008 07:51:40 PM · #85

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

It used to be illegal for blacks to sit in the front of the bus. Doesn't make that morally right one day and unacceptable the next.

Stop using analogies that may or may not pertain and tell me why you feel this. Then tell me if the same principle should also allow polygamy and/or an adult marrying a child? Have we just not moved "beyond" these either? or is there some difference I am failing to grasp? It simply seems like a case of liberty to me. If a man should have the liberty to marry another man, why can he not have the liberty to have four wives or marry an eleven-year-old?

Message edited by author 2008-10-14 19:52:05.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/14/2008 07:57:49 PM · #86

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
It used to be illegal for blacks to sit in the front of the bus. Doesn't make that morally right one day and unacceptable the next.

Stop using analogies that may or may not pertain and tell me why you feel this. Then tell me if the same principle should also allow polygamy and/or an adult marrying a child? Have we just not moved "beyond" these either? or is there some difference I am failing to grasp? It simply seems like a case of liberty to me. If a man should have the liberty to marry another man, why can he not have the liberty to have four wives or marry an eleven-year-old?

No, an adult should not be allowed to marry a child, that's different because the child has not reached the age of consent. If a young girl wants to marry a creepy, wrinkly old guy, she can do so as soon as she's reached the age of consent. As for polygamy, I don't see any moral barriers to it as long as all parties are consenting adults.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

10/14/2008 08:00:50 PM · #87

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What moral argument postulates that a society does not have the right to decide to limit a marriage to that between a man and a woman?

It is rather diffucult to prove a negative. What argument might make it illegal to make a law that says that left handed people should not be issued drivers licenses? If greater society found Jews offensive might we ban them from owning property?

I believe the thinking of the last few courts that have ruled on the gay marriage issue comes down to the point that if a behavior is not illegal, then those who practice said behavior are entitled to full legal rights of any other human. Once the practice of homosexual sex was removed from the laws as a punishable offense, then they are entitled to the legal rights anyone else is. If you find a particular act offensive enough, pass a law to make it illegal, but if it isn't illegal, you can't discriminate against people who perform that act.

Marriage is a tricky one only because it overlaps the arena of the church and the state, but the notion that society is served better by some distant cousin having greater legal claim to the estate of a dying man than a lifetime companion, who happens to be the same sex, is on its face untrue, yet without some change in the marriage statue this is the case. When a gay man is in the hospital, his parents have the right to ban his partner from visitation or a voice in treatment. There are real legal issues here, that quoting Deuteronomy does not answer.

Message edited by author 2008-10-14 20:01:52.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

10/14/2008 08:01:31 PM · #88

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It's difficult to believe you are actually serious about this. For example, do you seriously see no distinction between two adults getting married, and an adult and a minor getting married? Presumably you are putting forward "worst-case" scenarios, ie, if we allow one thing, we must allow all things, but this is a false argument. If we allow women to go around bare-chested, as men do, won't we need to allow all forms of public nudity? No, one doesn't follow from the other. This is a real-world example, because in my province of Ontario, when the law preventing women from going topless in the mid-nineties was struck down as discriminatory, this was one of the arguments. Hasn't happened. (Though my personal opinion is that nudity laws are stupid.)

It isn't a question of liberty, it's a question of equality. The analogies Spaz gives are apropos, so why shouldn't they be offered?

10/14/2008 08:05:31 PM · #89

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
It used to be illegal for blacks to sit in the front of the bus. Doesn't make that morally right one day and unacceptable the next.

Stop using analogies that may or may not pertain and tell me why you feel this. Then tell me if the same principle should also allow polygamy and/or an adult marrying a child? Have we just not moved "beyond" these either? or is there some difference I am failing to grasp? It simply seems like a case of liberty to me. If a man should have the liberty to marry another man, why can he not have the liberty to have four wives or marry an eleven-year-old?

No, an adult should not be allowed to marry a child, that's different because the child has not reached the age of consent. If a young girl wants to marry a creepy, wrinkly old guy, she can do so as soon as she's reached the age of consent. As for polygamy, I don't see any moral barriers to it as long as all parties are consenting adults.

OK. Fair enough. Your position is consistent. (BTW, I agree with the argument that the child marriage is different because the child is viewed differently by the law.) So it sounds like you are arguing from a position of liberty. If an informed adult consents, then it should be fine. You must, however, know that we restrict liberty every day from wearing seatbelts to buying cigarettes and beyond. If we can restrict liberty in some ways, I still do not understand how we, as a society, can't restrict it in other ways.

To go back to your blacks and the bus analogy. That was wrong under the constitution because one class of people (blacks) were restricted from doing something (sitting in the front of the bus) another class (whites) was allowed. I pointed out this does not apply to the current argument because no class is being prevented from marriage as it is commonly understood (a union between one man and a woman). It is the definition that is being debated and that is not a matter of equality but one simply of arbitrary decision.

EDIT for Louis: yes, I concede the child marriage as a bad example. Focus rather on polygamy which should be more appropriate.

Message edited by author 2008-10-14 20:06:55.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

10/14/2008 08:19:14 PM · #90

Probably opening up a whole nuther can of worms, but concerning the child marriage, someone asked "what if the parents of the eleven-year-old consented to the marriage?" Is this a liberty we should allow?

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

10/14/2008 08:20:14 PM · #91

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So it sounds like you are arguing from a position of liberty. If an informed adult consents, then it should be fine. You must, however, know that we restrict liberty every day from wearing seatbelts to buying cigarettes and beyond. If we can restrict liberty in some ways, I still do not understand how we, as a society, can't restrict it in other ways.

The difference here is those restrictions are across the board. Everyone must wear seatbelts, Cigarette buying is an age consent issue and for that matter smoking bans in public buildings is for everyone, not just select groups of individuals.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

10/14/2008 08:21:14 PM · #92

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So it sounds like you are arguing from a position of liberty. If an informed adult consents, then it should be fine. You must, however, know that we restrict liberty every day from wearing seatbelts to buying cigarettes and beyond. If we can restrict liberty in some ways, I still do not understand how we, as a society, can't restrict it in other ways.

The difference here is those restrictions are across the board. Everyone must wear seatbelts, Cigarette buying is an age consent issue and for that matter smoking bans in public buildings is for everyone, not just select groups of individuals.

Everyone is restricted from marrying someone of their own gender. Not just gays. I couldn't do it either if I wanted to give those legal rights afforded by marriage to my best friend Jeremy.

Message edited by author 2008-10-14 20:21:37.

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

10/14/2008 08:25:22 PM · #93

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So it sounds like you are arguing from a position of liberty. If an informed adult consents, then it should be fine. You must, however, know that we restrict liberty every day from wearing seatbelts to buying cigarettes and beyond. If we can restrict liberty in some ways, I still do not understand how we, as a society, can't restrict it in other ways.

The difference here is those restrictions are across the board. Everyone must wear seatbelts, Cigarette buying is an age consent issue and for that matter smoking bans in public buildings is for everyone, not just select groups of individuals.

Everyone is restricted from marrying someone of their own gender. Not just gays. I couldn't do it either if I wanted to give those legal rights afforded by marriage to my best friend Jeremy.

Ah, but marriage isn't restricted to two adults who are of opposite sex, so you are making a distinction/discrimination based upon a person sex in relation to their partners. If you banned marriage to all individuals regardless of the sex of the person they were trying to marry then you would have an argument, as it is now you are arbitrarily deciding who marries who based upon sex.

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

10/14/2008 08:42:34 PM · #94

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To go back to your blacks and the bus analogy. That was wrong under the constitution because one class of people (blacks) were restricted from doing something (sitting in the front of the bus) another class (whites) was allowed. I pointed out this does not apply to the current argument because no class is being prevented from marriage as it is commonly understood (a union between one man and a woman). It is the definition that is being debated and that is not a matter of equality but one simply of arbitrary decision.

Let's define Class, as difined by freedictionary.com:

class
Noun
1. a group of people sharing a similar social and economic position
2. the system of dividing society into such groups
3. a group of people or things sharing a common characteristic

I think its fair to say that homosexuals fit into this defintion of a class of people. So you are discriminating against a class of people by withholding them the Same rights of a hetero couple, really no different than Spaz's bus analogy.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

10/14/2008 08:46:29 PM · #95

What it really all comes down to is a group of people regressing to the point where all they can do is cry, "This is MY toy, and YOU can't have it!"

In some places, a reasonable adult has come in and defused the situation by handing out the same toy to everyone.

In other places, there's not a reasonable adult to be found.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

10/14/2008 08:47:13 PM · #96

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To go back to your blacks and the bus analogy. That was wrong under the constitution because one class of people (blacks) were restricted from doing something (sitting in the front of the bus) another class (whites) was allowed. I pointed out this does not apply to the current argument because no class is being prevented from marriage as it is commonly understood (a union between one man and a woman). It is the definition that is being debated and that is not a matter of equality but one simply of arbitrary decision.

Let's define Class, as difined by freedictionary.com:

class
Noun
1. a group of people sharing a similar social and economic position
2. the system of dividing society into such groups
3. a group of people or things sharing a common characteristic

Totally disagree. You asserted in the previous post that, "Ah, but marriage isn't restricted to two adults who are of opposite sex." I'm going to have to ask you for some citation there. What are you basing this on?

I think its fair to say that homosexuals fit into this defintion of a class of people. So you are discriminating against a class of people by withholding them the Same rights of a hetero couple, really no different than Spaz's bus analogy.

Totally disagree. In the previous post you assert, "Ah, but marriage isn't restricted to two adults who are of opposite sex." I'm going to have to ask you to cite some sources here. What are you basing this on?

Message edited by author 2008-10-14 20:48:57.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

10/14/2008 08:48:40 PM · #97

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To go back to your blacks and the bus analogy. That was wrong under the constitution because one class of people (blacks) were restricted from doing something (sitting in the front of the bus) another class (whites) was allowed. I pointed out this does not apply to the current argument because no class is being prevented from marriage as it is commonly understood (a union between one man and a woman). It is the definition that is being debated and that is not a matter of equality but one simply of arbitrary decision.

Let's define Class, as difined by freedictionary.com:

class
Noun
1. a group of people sharing a similar social and economic position
2. the system of dividing society into such groups
3. a group of people or things sharing a common characteristic

Totally disagree. You asserted in the previous post that, "Ah, but marriage isn't restricted to two adults who are of opposite sex." I'm going to have to ask you for some citation there. What are you basing this on?

I think its fair to say that homosexuals fit into this defintion of a class of people. So you are discriminating against a class of people by withholding them the Same rights of a hetero couple, really no different than Spaz's bus analogy.

In British Columbia, Canada (in fact, all of Canada), marriage isn't restricted to two adults who are of opposite sex. You can look it up. It's fully legal, has been for almost 5 years or so. The world hasn't ended.

(edited to correct length of time, the years are going faster than I thought. Also, to correct that it is the whole country)

Message edited by author 2008-10-14 20:50:43.

JMart

Nikon D80

Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di for Nikon

10/14/2008 08:50:14 PM · #98

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

There are several interesting 'slippery slope' questions that have been raised with gay marriage. The problem with the child marriage comparison is that there is a wide range of things we don't let children 'consent' to do because we recognize they don't yet have the faculty to make such important decisions and such decisions should not be imposed by parents. This could be the topic of another debate, but it doesn't make a good parallel with gay marriage since gay marriage involves two consenting adults.

Bestiality is also sometimes brought up by conservative commentators "So, why shouldn't a guy be allowed to marry his dog?...." And again, that's not a fair comparison to gay marriage since gay marriage involves consenting adult humans (sorry if I sound speci-ist) and confirming the consent of an animal would be "ruff" at best.

The one comparison that seems valid to me (to open yet another worm can) is polygamy. If we should allow two people of any gender to marry because they are consenting adults in a committed & loving relationship shouldn't we also allow three or four people in a committed & loving consensual relationship to marry? Why the arbitrary number? Personally, I think the interpersonal strife would be too much and I'm very happy with my one lovely wife, but I'm not so sure my preference should be forced on everyone as the law of the land.