Other Resources My Cup of Joe » gay marriage ban Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 8
 
 
2006-03-24 9:35 AM
in reply to: #378304

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

autumn - 2006-03-24 10:01 AM just needed to say something about straight people discussing this issue...

OK...my turn to swoon...

I agree with what Autumn said (and bonus points for saying it so beautifully), but I'll add why I'm so passionate about it.

To me, it's not a "gay" or "straight" issue at all. It's a people issue. It's about not marginalizing any segment of the population. It's about treating everyone equally under man's laws. Yes, ASA points out correctly that, if there is a compelling reason the courts can discriminate. But shouldn't the burden of proof be on the discriminators and not the discriminatees?

Why, in this society, should a group of citizens be forced to fight and scrape and claw for rights afforded to other citizens, just because the establishment doesn't like thier choice of partners? Shouldn't the discriminators be forced to demonstrate in a rational, testable, evidence-supported manner (and not in a faith-based manner) why that group of people should be treated differently? And until they can, shouldn't we simply all be treated the same?



Edited by run4yrlif 2006-03-24 9:37 AM


2006-03-24 9:45 AM
in reply to: #378368

User image

Elite
2777
2000500100100252525
In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats.
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
run4yrlif - 2006-03-24 10:35 AM

autumn - 2006-03-24 10:01 AM just needed to say something about straight people discussing this issue...

Why, in this society, should a group of citizens be forced to fight and scrape and claw for rights afforded to other citizens, just because the establishment doesn't like thier choice of partners?

So what are the boundaries, where does it end? Or should we care?
2006-03-24 9:45 AM
in reply to: #378368

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
run4yrlif -

Shouldn't the discriminators be forced to demonstrate in a rational, testable, evidence-supported manner (and not in a faith-based manner) why that group of people should be treated differently? And until they can, shouldn't we simply all be treated the same?

Jim, what I'm attempting to put forward is the rational, testable, evidence-supported, empirical argument. (although, I'm probably not doing it justice.)

You keep bringing up this issue of religion. My argument is not a religious argument, unless you would claim that all arguments are religious in there underpinings.

Would you say that Descartes claim that "I think, therefore I am", is a religious argument? That philosophy is at the root of what I see as the problem with gay marriage. If you do agree that Descartes was making a religious argument, then maybe I'll accept your premis that the counter argument is "faith based" as you call it. But if that is true, then both sides are using "faith based" arguments.



Edited by dontracy 2006-03-24 9:47 AM
2006-03-24 9:52 AM
in reply to: #378390

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

gullahcracker - 2006-03-24 10:45 AM  So what are the boundaries, where does it end? Or should we care?

So...right now we have laws on the books that talk about age, numbers and familial relationships. What I'm saying is that anyone that meets those definitions should be allowed to marry, civlly. Apply the law equally.

That's it. 

2006-03-24 10:00 AM
in reply to: #378368

User image

molto veloce mama
9311
500020002000100100100
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
run4yrlif - 2006-03-24 9:35 AM

It's about treating everyone equally under man's laws.


OUR laws, jim, OUR laws.
2006-03-24 10:04 AM
in reply to: #375942

User image

molto veloce mama
9311
500020002000100100100
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
how did i miss this?

"The bodily union of spouses in marital acts is the biological matrix of their marriage as a multi-level relationship: that is, a relationship that unites persons at the bodily, emotional, dispositional, and spiritual levels of their being. Marriage, precisely as such a relationship , is naturally ordered to the good of procreation (and to the nurturing and education of children) as well as to the good of spousal unity, and these goods are tightly bound together. The distinctive unity of spouses is possible because human (like other mammalian) males and females, by mating, unite organically - they become a single reproductive principle."

so, should straight couples who don't want kids be banned from marrying? how about couples who want kids but can't because onf infertility issues? what about adoption? be careful where you draw the biological line on this one. in this day and age, it isn't just about sex and making babies. and the last time i checked, we humans were pretty good at reproducing w/ or w/o marriage.

Edited by autumn 2006-03-24 10:06 AM


2006-03-24 10:05 AM
in reply to: #378391

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

Maybe I'm getting tripped up on the definition you've posted twice now, because that clearlly is a faith-based definition: "Marriage is a two-in-one-flesh communion of persons..." That is simply a rephrasing of Genesis 2:24: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." 

All arguments do not have religious underpinings. Mine doesn't, clearly. Descarte's statement is a philisophical one, and many philisophical arguments of course do stem from religious dogma. Here's what it boils down to: this is a separation of church and state issue, as the*chief* argument against gay marriage is based in relgious opinion. And in this country we don't legislate religious dogma.

You say your opinion is "rational, testable, evidence-supported, (and)empirical", but it's theoretical since gay marriage, in this society has never been legal. Therefore, you can't offer credible evidence that it's a bad idea. And until you can provide evidence that it's a bad thing (what ASA called a compelling argument", you shouldn't deny people opportunities available to other citizens.  

dontracy - 2006-03-24 10:45 AM

Jim, what I'm attempting to put forward is the rational, testable, evidence-supported, empirical argument. (although, I'm probably not doing it justice.)

You keep bringing up this issue of religion. My argument is not a religious argument, unless you would claim that all arguments are religious in there underpinings.

Would you say that Descartes claim that "I think, therefore I am", is a religious argument? That philosophy is at the root of what I see as the problem with gay marriage. If you do agree that Descartes was making a religious argument, then maybe I'll accept your premis that the counter argument is "faith based" as you call it. But if that is true, then both sides are using "faith based" arguments.

2006-03-24 10:06 AM
in reply to: #378430

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

autumn - 2006-03-24 11:00 AM
run4yrlif - 2006-03-24 9:35 AM It's about treating everyone equally under man's laws.
OUR laws, jim, OUR laws.

Point taken. I was separating it from God's laws.

2006-03-24 10:11 AM
in reply to: #378402

User image

Elite
2777
2000500100100252525
In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats.
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
run4yrlif - 2006-03-24 10:52 AM

gullahcracker - 2006-03-24 10:45 AM  So what are the boundaries, where does it end? Or should we care?

So...right now we have laws on the books that talk about age, numbers and familial relationships. What I'm saying is that anyone that meets those definitions should be allowed to marry, civlly. Apply the law equally.

That's it. 

Point taken and accepted. Now you continue to refer to "separation of church and state" and I understand what you're saying....but it is impossible to have a separation of church and people. And the state is comprised of people. A lot of them are Christian people. As I stated earlier, their loyalty to their conviction is far greater than any loyalty or binding of a constitution. Hence the infusion of religion into law.
2006-03-24 10:14 AM
in reply to: #378357

User image

Pro
3906
20001000500100100100100
St Charles, IL
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
dontracy - 2006-03-24 8:26 AM

Chris, this to to respond just to the first of your questions.

As with all of us who are citizens, I am part of the body called "The People". This body has the right to form the government. The government has the right, with restrictions, to pass laws that limit what another person may or may not do.

Those restrictions are thankfully quite large.

 

I put these ideas forward because I am still at a stage of deciding what to do should I be presented with a vote like a protection of marriage ammendment.

The more I look at the issue from all sides and up and down, the more I find the argument for gay marriage to be weaker than the argument against it.

I am saddened that you feel the arguments for continuing discrimination outweigh arguments against it.

That to me is a much greater cheapening of the human spirit.

To take an inclusive view of humanity requires one to accept humanity in many forms, not just the familiar and similar.  I prefer to take an inclusive view of the issue, and do not wish to have anyone excluded because they are "different from me" or "different from what I am used to".

 

 

2006-03-24 10:19 AM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
Don-

If I understand you correctly, you are concerned about the increasing objectification of the human person and that sex without the intent (or possibility) of procreation furthers this objectification because the only way to fully integrate the two partners is through this "marital act". My question is why is it not possible for two people (any two people) to be bonded through love, through the melding of their spirits and soul? Isn't it the intimacy of the marital act and not the actual act itself which is allowing for the union of the couple?

It almost seems as if this focus on the marital act and procreation is cast as the only basis for true integration solely beacuse it is the one and only requirement that a non-hetero couple could not fulfill.

edited to add: I always see your name and think you are the head of a mafia family...

Edited by drewb8 2006-03-24 10:21 AM


2006-03-24 10:22 AM
in reply to: #378458

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
coredump - 2006-03-24 11:14 AM

I put these ideas forward because I am still at a stage of deciding what to do should I be presented with a vote like a protection of marriage ammendment.

The more I look at the issue from all sides and up and down, the more I find the argument for gay marriage to be weaker than the argument against it.

I am saddened that you feel the arguments for continuing discrimination outweigh arguments against it.

That to me is a much greater cheapening of the human spirit.

To take an inclusive view of humanity requires one to accept humanity in many forms, not just the familiar and similar. I prefer to take an inclusive view of the issue, and do not wish to have anyone excluded because they are "different from me" or "different from what I am used to".

 

At this point, I'll go back to what Chippy said way back on Page 1 (or maybe 2) of this thread. The day we ammend the constitution to deny rights to some, but not all, American citizens is a sad, sad day in the country's history. 

2006-03-24 10:53 AM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Elite
3972
200010005001001001001002525
Reno
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

Wouldn't formal declarations of a union (ie marriage) hold homosexuals to the same standards of fidelity and commitment as heterosexuals?  Shouldn't that make the people who think we can legislate morality happy?

Why does the state even have the right to say who can form a family, and why does the act of sex enter into that?  If people are going to make a committment to form a family unit, shouldn't there be another measurement other than who is putting what where?

2006-03-24 11:03 AM
in reply to: #375942

Elite
2458
20001001001001002525
Livingston, MT
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
Marriage is a contract that unfortunately bestows upon its participants financial benefits in an effort to redistribute wealth. If we didn't redistribute wealth, there would be absolutely no reason to care about "the sanctity of marriage." It's all a bunch of crap in an effort to take our attention away from the money pit that is Iraq.



2006-03-24 11:13 AM
in reply to: #378458

User image

Elite
2733
200050010010025
Venture Industries,
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
coredump - 2006-03-24 11:14 AM

dontracy - 2006-03-24 8:26 AM

Chris, this to to respond just to the first of your questions.

As with all of us who are citizens, I am part of the body called "The People". This body has the right to form the government. The government has the right, with restrictions, to pass laws that limit what another person may or may not do.

Those restrictions are thankfully quite large.

 

I put these ideas forward because I am still at a stage of deciding what to do should I be presented with a vote like a protection of marriage ammendment.

The more I look at the issue from all sides and up and down, the more I find the argument for gay marriage to be weaker than the argument against it.

I am saddened that you feel the arguments for continuing discrimination outweigh arguments against it.

That to me is a much greater cheapening of the human spirit.

To take an inclusive view of humanity requires one to accept humanity in many forms, not just the familiar and similar.  I prefer to take an inclusive view of the issue, and do not wish to have anyone excluded because they are "different from me" or "different from what I am used to".

 

 



Chris and Jim becareful with statements such as this, because governmental "discrimination" or non-equal treatment also takes the form of "preferential treatment" for certain groups. You see it in government bids to minorities, minority hiring practices, and even in the criminal realm in hate crime legislation. The governments different treatment does not necessarily have to be a limiting of rights to one group, it can also take the form of granting greater rights to a group that is viewed as underpriviledge. Of course in doing so you have be simple definition treated groupd unequally.

so does your statement "I am saddened that you feel the arguments for continuing descrimination outweight the arguments against it. That to me is a much greater cheapening of th human spirit." only apply to when the government descriminates to take rights away and not when the government descriminates in favor of a group? Unequal treatment can be a good thing in that in some instances it grants greater protections or greater access.

I understand your point, I simply caution against such a sweeping statement. here's an example: There was a Florida crimina statute that increased the penalty for "hate based crime" (It has since been declared unconsitutional). In essence if someone committed an aggravated battery against a victim it is normally a second degree felony punishable by 15 years in prison. However, if it was a "hate based or racially motivated" aggravated crime it increased to a first degree felony punishable by 30 years in prison. So if you got your skull bashed in with a baseball bat by some "cracker" second degree felony. However, if the same cracker bashed the skull in of an African-American victim "hate crime" and a first degree felony.

And across the country there are variations on this "hate crime" legislation which boiled down extends protection unequally, is this a bad thing?

I'm in no way giving an opinion one way or another, I'm just challenging you and Jim to think about the entire spectrum of possibilities and challenge both of you to think about if there are situations, or circumstances in which it is entirely proper for the government to give preferential treatment towards on group?
2006-03-24 11:22 AM
in reply to: #378564

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

ASA22 - 2006-03-24 12:13 PM...I'm just challenging you and Jim to think about the entire spectrum of possibilities and challenge both of you to think about if there are situations, or circumstances in which it is entirely proper for the government to give preferential treatment towards on group?

Your point's a good one, John. It'd be easy to say broadly that equal is equal is equal. But I'll say that personally, yeah, I'm more concerned about limited rights than greater rights. In the case of affirmative action, the state makes a conscious effort to ensure that formerly-marginalized groups are protected. And on balance, I'm OK with that. I wish it didn't have to be that way, but it is what it is. BUt in this particular case, we're dealing with a currently-marginalized group and saying "to hell with you." So yes, I'd prefer the other extreme.



2006-03-24 11:25 AM
in reply to: #378468

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

edited to add: I always see your name and think you are the head of a mafia family...

LOL... I spit my coffee on my screen...

drewb8 - If I understand you correctly, you are concerned about the increasing objectification of the human person and that sex without the intent (or possibility) of procreation furthers this objectification because the only way to fully integrate the two partners is through this "marital act". My question is why is it not possible for two people (any two people) to be bonded through love, through the melding of their spirits and soul? Isn't it the intimacy of the marital act and not the actual act itself which is allowing for the union of the couple? It almost seems as if this focus on the marital act and procreation is cast as the only basis for true integration solely beacuse it is the one and only requirement that a non-hetero couple could not fulfill.

Hopefully, this will address the question asked by Coredump about what is the marital act, as well as the comment by akabak regarding sodomitical acts within a heterosexual marriage, as well as run4yrlfs insistance that there is no credible evidence that would support the notion that a particular man and woman union that is called marriage can be lawfully set apart as a class.

Yes, people are bonded together through love and through, as you say, the melding of spirit and souls. The question is: is this the same for gay couples as it is for heterosexual couples.

In my experience, I'd say that it sure seems so.

But in marriage between a man and a woman there is an additional element, that being the marital act (intercourse within the full context of marriage). This procreative-type act is unique to the heterosexual couple.

Is it the only thing that defines the marriage? Of course not. Is it an integral part of the marriage? Yes.

What seems to be happening, is that the additional element of the marital, procreative-act is being dismissed by proponents of gay marriage as being irrelevent. The emphasis is being placed on what you rightly observe as other elements that make up the total matrix of what is marriage, bonding through love and so forth.

It is the additional element of the procreative-act that is why marriage can rightly be said to be a communion of two persons. It's why polygamy is wrong.

I imagine that some judge or justice somewhere will ask the question: why limit marriage to two persons?

The answer to that is because marriage is the communion of persons involving a total multi-level matrix that is emotional, spiritual, and bodily. The bodily procreative-type act is only possible with two persons. No more, no fewer.

The only answer I can think of for supporting gay marriage within this context is to argue that gay marriage is analogous to marriage between a man and a woman, and that it recognizes the total matrix, that includes the bodily procreative-act, but is not able to physically actualize it.

That's an argument that, I'm sure, most proponents of gay marriage would not want to make. Although, I would suggest, it may be a place to look for a loophole in my argument.



Edited by dontracy 2006-03-24 11:26 AM
2006-03-24 11:34 AM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Pro
3906
20001000500100100100100
St Charles, IL
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

Don,

Is a heterosexual couple that is knowingly unable to have children able to enter into your definition of a marriage?

-Chris

 

2006-03-24 11:37 AM
in reply to: #378599

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
coredump -

Is a heterosexual couple that is knowingly unable to have children able to enter into your definition of a marriage?

Yes, because the marital act needs to be procreative in type but not in effect.

 

2006-03-24 11:37 AM
in reply to: #378583

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

Don, don't you think that such an existential definition is (or chould be) difficult for the law to embrace? From a *legal* standpoint, I'd have to say that Chuckie's definition is more appropriate. I think what you're purporting is perfectly appropriate for marriage in a religious setting, as a contract with God. But with all do respect has no place in (sorry Autumn) man's laws.

But even so, from a religious standpoint different relgions and even denominations within a particular faith will and do have different definitions who and who should not be married. For instance, in the Christian bible no where does Jesus say anything about homosexuality. If you take a broad, "what would Jesus do?" approach, in my opinion he would say it's more about love and less about sex. But obviously that's my opinion.

2006-03-24 11:38 AM
in reply to: #378607

User image

Pro
3906
20001000500100100100100
St Charles, IL
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
dontracy - 2006-03-24 10:37 AM
coredump -

Is a heterosexual couple that is knowingly unable to have children able to enter into your definition of a marriage?

Yes, because the marital act needs to be procreative in type but not in effect.

What if they are unable to have sex?

( Age, infirmity, tragic band saw accident, ... )

-Chris 



2006-03-24 11:39 AM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Champion
5183
5000100252525
Wisconsin
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban

Don wrote:

"The only answer I can think of for supporting gay marriage within this context is to argue that gay marriage is analogous to marriage between a man and a woman, and that it recognizes the total matrix, that includes the bodily procreative-act, but is not able to physically actualize it."

Uh, yeah. Duh.  It is exactly that. DId you think that the gay couples in this country who want to be married intended anything else? (And there are quite a few heterosexual marriages which are having trouble "physically actualizing" the bodily procreative act.   Actually, all couples fail to physically actualize at some time or another, right?

2006-03-24 11:47 AM
in reply to: #378608

User image

Pro
3906
20001000500100100100100
St Charles, IL
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
run4yrlif - 2006-03-24 10:37 AM

Don, don't you think that such an existential definition is (or chould be) difficult for the law to embrace? From a *legal* standpoint, I'd have to say that Chuckie's definition is more appropriate. I think what you're purporting is perfectly appropriate for marriage in a religious setting, as a contract with God. But with all do respect has no place in (sorry Autumn) man's laws.

But even so, from a religious standpoint different relgions and even denominations within a particular faith will and do have different definitions who and who should not be married. For instance, in the Christian bible no where does Jesus say anything about homosexuality. If you take a broad, "what would Jesus do?" approach, in my opinion he would say it's more about love and less about sex. But obviously that's my opinion.

Perform same-sex ceremonies     Ordain active homosexuals     Ordain celibate homosexuals

Episcopal             YES NO YES

Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America NO NO YES

Islam NO NO NO

National Association of
Evangelicals ("born again" NO NO NO

Presbyterian Church (USA) YES NO YES

Reform Judaism YES YES YES

Roman Catholic Church NO NO YES

Southern Baptist
Convention NO NO NO

The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints
(Mormon) NO NO NO

United Church of Christ YES YES YES

United Methodist Church NO NO NO

2006-03-24 12:01 PM
in reply to: #378608

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
run4yrlif - 

Don, don't you think that such an existential definition is (or chould be) difficult for the law to embrace? From a *legal* standpoint, I'd have to say that Chuckie's definition is more appropriate.

Good point.  I'll leave that to trained lawyers to answer.

Is there a lawyer in the house? 

2006-03-24 12:47 PM
in reply to: #375942

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: gay marriage ban
It seems that the crux of your position is that it is the procreative act which defines the unification of the two people and thus marriage, so by your definition you would have to prohibit not only homsexuals from being married, but also hetero couples who have no intention of having children. And what about a homosexual couple who may come together with the intention of procreating and raising a family, but because of the way it works cannot. Is this any different from the hetero couple who, um.. can't perform?

Whether or not a couple commit to each other in order to procreate or not is not something in which the state should have an interest.

Please don't have me whacked.


Edited by drewb8 2006-03-24 12:48 PM
New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » gay marriage ban Rss Feed  
 
 
of 8