Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

10/15/2008 02:21:52 PM · #176

Originally posted by eqsite:

It seems that you're ignoring the fact that heterosexual couples have the legal option of becoming married if they want access to those rights. Homosexual couples do not.

But you are ignoring the idea that calling homosexual unions "marriage" may harm just as many people as it helps. Like I said, it's a two-way street, not one-way. You can blow off those people being harmed as being "backward" or whatever, but I do not doubt they exist.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

10/15/2008 02:23:08 PM · #177

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eqsite:
It seems that you're ignoring the fact that heterosexual couples have the legal option of becoming married if they want access to those rights. Homosexual couples do not.

But you are ignoring the idea that calling homosexual unions "marriage" may harm just as many people as it helps. Like I said, it's a two-way street, not one-way. You can blow off those people being harmed as being "backward" or whatever, but I do not doubt they exist.

From what moral argument are you saying that these people will be harmed? If you can provide that, then we can compare each moral agrument against the other?

Louis

Nikon D800

10/15/2008 02:27:00 PM · #178

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We all understand they are "living together" or "cohabitating" and that they are "significant others". Why can't gay couples participate in this without it being legally defined under the word "marriage"?

Because they are not being treated equally? Because domestic partnerships are not the same as married partnerships in the regions where this is an issue? Because the government is trying to institutionalize a certain form of discrimination? I suppose if you (one) is unable to call this kind of government-sanctioned activity "discrimination" in the first place, the question becomes primarily one of semantics for that person. But I think it's a question of equal rights.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If we simply say that gay couples feel harmed by not being able to use the word married, I would counter that there are people, probably devoutly religious, who would feel equally harmed if the word, one that originates in religion, is co-opted for a union their religion sees as wrong.

Then they must be educated that this is religiously sanctioned bigotry that should be eradicated.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

They may feel it is harder to raise their children because of the confusion now from the term "marriage". (Mommy,it says in Hebrews that "marriage should be honored by all", does that mean I should honor Frank and Jim's marriage? but that doesn't make sense because the scriptures frown on homosexuality. What gives?)

Eek. I don't think any child of an age to still say "Mommy" is going to come up with anything like that. And anyway, if you are going to argue this point, you must continue. What if I don't want my atheist child to see all this God talk in the schools, on TV, on bumper stickers, etc.? I am offended by it, and it makes rearing my atheist child all the more difficult. It's a two way street. What are you going to do to help me raise my atheist child in the way I see fit?

But I see you've attempted to address this point in the last part of your post. Something doesn't seem quite right though. I'd be interested in two things, to assist in judging your arguments: your attitude toward homosexuality, and your position on gay marriage.

Edit: prose -> post

Message edited by author 2008-10-15 14:29:55.

10/15/2008 02:28:19 PM · #179

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eqsite:
It seems that you're ignoring the fact that heterosexual couples have the legal option of becoming married if they want access to those rights. Homosexual couples do not.

But you are ignoring the idea that calling homosexual unions "marriage" may harm just as many people as it helps. Like I said, it's a two-way street, not one-way. You can blow off those people being harmed as being "backward" or whatever, but I do not doubt they exist.

From what moral argument are you saying that these people will be harmed? If you can provide that, then we can compare each moral agrument against the other?

Yes, you haven't described how such people would be harmed. That's very important for this supposed equivalence you are trying to demonstrate.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

10/15/2008 02:28:32 PM · #180

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eqsite:
Is this really an argument? Of course women and men aren't equal. Two men side-by-side aren't equal, nor are two women. But they should all be afforded equal rights.

But there are many instances in the law where men and women are viewed differently. "Separate, but equal." was the term you used. I'm just trying to point out that such a thing does not automatically equal discrimination.

Can you give me an example? It would seem to me that this would be discriminatory.

Men and women appear to have the right to form clubs of their own gender and exclude the other sex. I mentioned examples of Curves or the Augusta National Golf Club. While both genders have this ability, if someone were to challenge it, the court would certainly take into account the challenger was of the opposite sex.

Louis

Nikon D800

10/15/2008 02:28:50 PM · #181

what the... mistake post...

Message edited by author 2008-10-15 14:29:24.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

10/15/2008 02:30:26 PM · #182

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eqsite:
Is this really an argument? Of course women and men aren't equal. Two men side-by-side aren't equal, nor are two women. But they should all be afforded equal rights.

But there are many instances in the law where men and women are viewed differently. "Separate, but equal." was the term you used. I'm just trying to point out that such a thing does not automatically equal discrimination.

Can you give me an example? It would seem to me that this would be discriminatory.

Men and women appear to have the right to form clubs of their own gender and exclude the other sex. I mentioned examples of Curves or the Augusta National Golf Club. While both genders have this ability, if someone were to challenge it, the court would certainly take into account the challenger was of the opposite sex.

Government is not a private club.

10/15/2008 02:31:02 PM · #183

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eqsite:
Can you give me an example? It would seem to me that this would be discriminatory.

Men and women appear to have the right to form clubs of their own gender and exclude the other sex. I mentioned examples of Curves or the Augusta National Golf Club. While both genders have this ability, if someone were to challenge it, the court would certainly take into account the challenger was of the opposite sex.

I've seen situations like these go either way in the courts. Furthermore, if that club is getting government money, then I think the courts have consistently ruled that it is discriminatory.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

10/15/2008 02:32:28 PM · #184

Wait, I see you did provide an example of this harm. You're harming their religious right to pretend that everybody in the world follows the moral dictates of their religion.

And you honestly feel that this harm is equivalent to the harm of being deprived of the ability to marry.

WOW.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

10/15/2008 02:32:47 PM · #185

Originally posted by eqsite:

So you would be in favor of a "separate, but equal" policy? Am I reading that correctly? The problem with "separate, but equal" is that once it is separate it is immediately not-equal. That is why this type of policy was shot down for racial divisions in schools. Once you define something as being different, it is no longer equal, so "separate, but equal" is a paradox. If a separate class of marriage for homosexuals is equal to heterosexual marriage, why is there is a need for the separate class? The only reason would be to create a difference, so it would no longer be equal.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So do you think the idea that men and women are equal has no chance of attaining reality?

You're not married, are you Doc?

My wife and I are equals 'cause she says so.

10/15/2008 02:36:18 PM · #186

Originally posted by posthumous:

Yeah, I went back and reread that as well. Shocking.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

10/15/2008 02:36:21 PM · #187

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We all understand they are "living together" or "cohabitating" and that they are "significant others". Why can't gay couples participate in this without it being legally defined under the word "marriage"?

Because they are not being treated equally? Because domestic partnerships are not the same as married partnerships in the regions where this is an issue? Because the government is trying to institutionalize a certain form of discrimination? I suppose if you (one) is unable to call this kind of government-sanctioned activity "discrimination" in the first place, the question becomes primarily one of semantics for that person. But I think it's a question of equal rights.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we simply say that gay couples feel harmed by not being able to use the word married, I would counter that there are people, probably devoutly religious, who would feel equally harmed if the word, one that originates in religion, is co-opted for a union their religion sees as wrong.

Then they must be educated that this is religiously sanctioned bigotry that should be eradicated.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
They may feel it is harder to raise their children because of the confusion now from the term "marriage". (Mommy,it says in Hebrews that "marriage should be honored by all", does that mean I should honor Frank and Jim's marriage? but that doesn't make sense because the scriptures frown on homosexuality. What gives?)

Eek. I don't think any child of an age to still say "Mommy" is going to come up with anything like that. And anyway, if you are going to argue this point, you must continue. What if I don't want my atheist child to see all this God talk in the schools, on TV, on bumper stickers, etc.? I am offended by it, and it makes rearing my atheist child all the more difficult. It's a two way street. What are you going to do to help me raise my atheist child in the way I see fit?

But I see you've attempted to address this point in the last part of your post. Something doesn't seem quite right though. I'd be interested in two things, to assist in judging your arguments: your attitude toward homosexuality, and your position on gay marriage.

Edit: prose -> post

Too many coversations...head about to explode!

First, I'll politely decline to give you my position on homosexuality. I have tried before and I find it is far too complex (and even too unformed) for an internet discussion. It just doesn't work. My view on gay marriage is also somewhat unformed. Ultimately I would want some form of protection for gays. The stories about not being able to visit in the hospital, etc, I find repugnant. OTOH, I do recognize that the tradition of "marriage" is rooted in religion and not government. Like I've tried to say, with regards to how the law views it, I regard it as arbitrary. If the populace decides that they don't want to call it marriage, so be it. If they do, so be it. Both are likely to cause harm to some small group of people and while I see that as unfortunate, I think it inevitable.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

10/15/2008 02:38:17 PM · #188

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But you are ignoring the idea that calling homosexual unions "marriage" may harm just as many people as it helps.

Doc, you cannot possibly hope to fly this.

HARM?!?!?!?!?!?!

ONE example, PLEASE?????

There's a radical difference between having your sensibilities offended and being denied legal rights.

10/15/2008 02:38:43 PM · #189

Originally posted by eqsite:

Yeah, I went back and reread that as well. Shocking.

Stop it with the "shocking". The harm done to gays by not calling a union "marriage" when in all other ways it is equivalent under the law (ie. domestic partnership in california or Canada) may be equal to the harm done to a very small % of the devoutly religious as they raise their children. I would find either harm to be hard to characterize.

10/15/2008 02:39:17 PM · #190

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

OTOH, I do recognize that the tradition of "marriage" is rooted in religion and not government.

So, in spite of all our arguments, we could both be happy if "marriage" stopped being a legal term all together and were replaced by "civil union"? If that were the case, then every religion could make its own determination about who could marry whom.

10/15/2008 02:40:24 PM · #191

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eqsite:
Yeah, I went back and reread that as well. Shocking.

Stop it with the "shocking". The harm done to gays by not calling a union "marriage" when in all other ways it is equivalent under the law (ie. domestic partnership in california or Canada) may be equal to the harm done to a very small % of the devoutly religious as they raise their children. I would find either harm to be hard to characterize.

The "shocking" was tounge-in-cheek, but that doesn't come through in the forum -- no harm meant.

There are religions that forbid marriage outside of the religion, so to take you tack and base the definition of marriage on some religious definition could easily be extended to forbid all sorts of marriages we take for granted today.

10/15/2008 02:40:29 PM · #192

[quote=NikonJebThere's a radical difference between having your sensibilities offended and being denied legal rights. [/quote]

Calling something marriage or not has not one whit to do with "legal rights". Do you understand this? I am not against legal rights for gay couples. I am all for it. The term "marriage" is what seems to have everybody up in arms. What harm is done by not calling it marriage? Seriously? If domestic partners were viewed equally under the law, then what harm would there be?

10/15/2008 02:41:54 PM · #193

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OTOH, I do recognize that the tradition of "marriage" is rooted in religion and not government.

So, in spite of all our arguments, we could both be happy if "marriage" stopped being a legal term all together and were replaced by "civil union"? If that were the case, then every religion could make its own determination about who could marry whom.

Personally, I would be all for it. Am I getting through? I know it seems trite, but it's trite on both sides. Either we are arguing about rights, in which case we are all in agreement that gays need protection, or we are arguing about semantics, in which case, both sides are as trite as the other.

10/15/2008 02:42:30 PM · #194

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
There's a radical difference between having your sensibilities offended and being denied legal rights.

Calling something marriage or not has not one whit to do with "legal rights". Do you understand this? I am not against legal rights for gay couples. I am all for it. The term "marriage" is what seems to have everybody up in arms. What harm is done by not calling it marriage? Seriously? If domestic partners were viewed equally under the law, then what harm would there be?

I know we're ganging up on you -- sorry about that. But posthumous' point about taking religion out of the legal definition of marriage would seem to satisfy this issue.

Message edited by author 2008-10-15 14:42:52.

10/15/2008 02:43:11 PM · #195

The posts are flying so fast I hope Louis saw my answer to his post above...

10/15/2008 02:44:03 PM · #196

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OTOH, I do recognize that the tradition of "marriage" is rooted in religion and not government.

So, in spite of all our arguments, we could both be happy if "marriage" stopped being a legal term all together and were replaced by "civil union"? If that were the case, then every religion could make its own determination about who could marry whom.

Personally, I would be all for it. Am I getting through? I know it seems trite, but it's trite on both sides. Either we are arguing about rights, in which case we are all in agreement that gays need protection, or we are arguing about semantics, in which case, both sides are as trite as the other.

Okay, so both of us could be made happy. The problem is that politicians on both sides use the confusion about the term "marriage" to hide their real agendas.

10/15/2008 02:44:43 PM · #197

Originally posted by eqsite:

I know we're ganging up on you -- sorry about that. But posthumous' point about taking religion out of the legal definition of marriage would seem to satisfy this issue.

Agreed....about the ganging up part. Just kidding. I agree with what you say. In my view, a lot of the vitriol of the argument would be removed by simply calling everything "civil unions". Leave the term "marriage" to the churches and synagogues who can define it as they wish under the precepts of their religion.

10/15/2008 02:45:20 PM · #198

Originally posted by posthumous:

Okay, so both of us could be made happy. The problem is that politicians on both sides use the confusion about the term "marriage" to hide their real agendas.

Friggin politicians...

10/15/2008 02:45:57 PM · #199

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by posthumous:
Okay, so both of us could be made happy. The problem is that politicians on both sides use the confusion about the term "marriage" to hide their real agendas.

Friggin politicians...

Shocking ;)