Update: I’m getting e-mail from people taking me to task for calling homosexuality a lifestyle choice. Whether or not someone is born homosexual — and I believe biology plays a role — is not the point.
Homosexuality may be natural for some people, but it doesn’t mean one is compelled to act on those inclinations. To be precise, I should have written in the column that homosexual behavior (including “marrying” someone of the same sex) is a lifestyle choice, whether or not a person is “born” homosexual. (I’ll be clearer next time!)
In that regard, homosexual behavior is in no way comparable to race. I’m black; I have no choice in the matter, no say at all. A homosexual may have no choice in being a homosexual, but he can choose not to engage in homosexual behavior.
———————————————————————-
Forty years ago — a little over a month after I was born — the U.S. Supreme Court declared laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional. See Loving v. Virginia.
Extremists on one side say interracial marriage has opened the door to deviant unions. Extremists on the other side say that Loving v. Virginia and the civil rights movement of the 1960s bolster their arguments for homosexual “marriage.”
Is interracial marriage a slippery slope? (The question is rhetorical, of course.)
I believe that changing the definition of marriage to include the union of two men and two women opens the door to legalizing increasingly deviant unions.
Non-rhetorical question: If we extend marriage to same-sex couples, on what grounds can we deny the same to three people? Or 10? Or close relatives? Or adults and children?
Related posts:
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 149 comments }
Non-rhetorical question: If we extend marriage to same-sex couples, on what grounds can we deny the same to three people?
There would be none. The logic that currently limits marriage to two people is based on there being one of each sex.
Eliminate that, and all bets are off.
I believe that you are correct about the slippery slope. If we don’t absoutly define what marriage is, the line will keep slipping backward. As for interracial marriage, who cares. If a man an a woman love each other race shouldn’t matter. The problem comes from the reaction of the people around you. You have to be strong enough to deal with it. Sadly I wasn’t, I dated a black woman in high school. We had a lot of fun and could have been happy together but stopped the relationship due to pressure from our fathers.
“If we extend marriage to same-sex couples, on what grounds can we deny the same to three people? Or 10? Or close relatives? Or adults and children?”
This question (unwittingly or not) makes direct connections between polygamy, pedophilia and homosexuality.
Let us take them one at a time to be clear
1. Why is homosexual marriage a ’slippery-slope’?
Answer = the Bible says so.
2. Why is polygamy a slippery slope?
Answer = the Bible says so.
3. Why is paedophilia on the same slippery slope as 1 and 2?
I don’t have an answer to this last one, as I have no clear knowledge of what the Bible clearly states to be the age of consent, or how it is intrinsically connected to polygamy/homosexuality, excpet for licentious individuals.
Humans are naturally ready to procreate at puberty, societal norms and laws can increase that age to something befitting the broad consensus? I’ve read that less than a century ago it was as low as 7 or 10 years in certain States.
Any Biblical reference would be helpful as I know this is a Christian discussion group.
Personally I have no problem with same-sex marriages.
Old-young/ overage-underage blurs the line *some* (unless no consent involved then it is clearly abuse), so there should be a global standard? I’m sure Christians would wish the global standard to reflect their doctrine, I just don’t know what it is.
Hope that answered your questions.
maybe the government should get out of the marriage business all together.
When I first came across your blog I wrote you off as another religious nut. I kept reading though and found that while we often don’t agree you seem to always offer intelligent commentary on hot topics. However, when you took the low road on this topic and put gay marriage on the same level as a union between adults and children you lost me.
Of course we can legalize marriage between two men or two women and NOT a marriage between and adult and a child. For one thing someone under 18 cannot enter into any legal agreement…and as much as some of us would like to change it, marriage is a legal agreement between two adults in addition to a religious one.
I used to read your blog. I don’t anymore.
You came onto the blog to tell me you don’t read the blog anymore? Yeah, right. You’ll read this edit and, most likely, respond. And you’ll come back to the site tomorrow. And the day after that. And the day after that… – Admin
“If we extend marriage to same-sex couples, on what grounds can we deny the same to three people?”
Marriage has always been defined as between two sexes, so if that changes, all rules are off. I don’t really care what two people do together, but same-sex unions are not marriages in the legal, biblical or accepted use of the word. I could see someone claim precedent in the Bible for polygamy, but not homosexuality. And I’m pretty sure it’s banned in the Koran and all other principle religions as well.
There is no justification against polygamy if you let in homosexual “marriages,†because at least polygamists have a firmer ground to stand on. The upside is that we don’t have to ruin our society by experimenting to find what will happen, and can just straightforwardly reject that type of marirage.
The issue is, what kind of society do you want? Lesbians who want marriage with children already have history against them: we can clearly see that everyone who thought fathers were worthless were dead wrong, and the resulting effects on society have not been pretty. I’d urge gay men who want the same arrangement to consider what kind of society you get if you successfully bamboozled people into thinking mothers are also worthless. No, I don’t care what you’ve heard, men and women are not interchangeable. Two gay men are still men, even if one of them put on a dress.
There is simply no reason for them to marry. I’ve heard the “arguments‗they need it so they can get insurance. Well, if that was such a problem, why not lobby to have the insurance cover any member of your household? Straight unmarried couples have that “problem.†I know sisters who live together, and friends who live together, have that “problem.†You’d help all of them just by lobbying for household coverage. Or is that not really the point?
Or, the issue is assets after death—it’s called a last will and testament, folks. If the lady who leaves all the money to her cats can make one, what’s your excuse?
Or, the issue is medical care. Who decides to save you vs. pulling the plug? Again, you make a living will. You give so and so power of attorney. What’s the problem?
There is no reason they offer that does not apply twice over to unmarried straight couples or people who don’t have a romantic or sexual angle to their relationship.
Regarding the adults and children angle, believe it or not, it’s already a problem with people from certain cultures, even when they move here. They bring their ways with them, and that means marrying off their 13 year old girl to a 30 year old man.
Why should we object to adult-child marriages, if we aren’t supposed to object to two men? I think even the Dutch put their foot down on that one (requiring potential spouses to be at least 25 before importing them).
And again, at least that arrangement has precedent. And again, we can measure the type of society in which that arrangement is prevalent against one in which it’s not, and reject it without ruining our own by experimentation.
That should be “marriage” in the first paragraph. If only we had a preview function…
JohnD, I think your thinking is a little twisted. First, this isn’t a Christian discussion group. It’s a blog run by a Christian and often commented on by Christians. Second, your commentary comes off as a little condescending by ascribing a desire by us Christians to essentially craft all laws based solely on Biblical principles. Third, this is all a distraction from the point.
The institution of marriage has a certain function in society that has always defined it. Interracial marriage does NOTHING to threaten or attempt to change that. One man and one woman seek to create a household together that can and will serve as a foundational social unit for its civilization. It is from this stable platform that well-adjusted children proceed and can thus establish the groundwork for a continually prosperous future for said society.
Certainly there are and will be exceptions. Marriages don’t always hold, children from these households can still be abused, or become criminals. Some couples may elect not to have children at all. But that does not invalidate the ideal. By completely forgoeing the ideal in the sanctioning of same-sex or multi-partner unions, the government would be lending legitimacy to a social unit that typically does not contribute to civilization in the same way. Thousands of years of human societal development and dozens of modern studies have already shown the ultimate superiority of a one man/one woman household in terms of raising children. If we roll our eyes at the ideal in deferrance to a (literal) perversion of the institution, we do deliberate harm to the future of our society.
The idea of the “age of consent” is based largely on how our society works. In Biblical times where a young girl could be given away in marriage at 10, there wasn’t the same societal complexity that there is today. Because of the freedom women enjoy today as opposed to then, there is far more to learn and experience before one is equipped to deal with a stable relationship with the opposite sex and the shared responsibility of child-rearing. Again, it would be stupid to throw out all we know because people want to “marry” children.
Tyrian is brilliant.
#6
Space Puppy, you said:
Marriage has always been defined as between two sexes, so if that changes, all rules are off.
History shows that, worldwide, societal ‘rules’ change all the time, whether or not you believe it is another question. These references might be of interest, as they go against your assertions:
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html
http://www.bidstrup.com/phobiahistory.htm
You then say:
“I’m pretty sure it’s banned in the Koran”
I don’t follow the Koran, hence I believe it’s authority regarding the morality of homosexuality proves exactly nothing other than religious doctrine.
Regards,
John
“your commentary comes off as a little condescending by ascribing a desire by us Christians to essentially craft all laws based solely on Biblical principles.”
Gabe, I am trying to be respectful by recognizing that Christians *must* see things in a Biblical framework otherwise it becomes ‘relativism’ which by experience I have found inadmissable/worthless here.
Please do not twist my words and try to uderstand that I am discussing this issue in a respectful manner.
LaShawn equated homosexual marriage with underage marriage. Now I know that she is against homosexual marriage because the Bible says it is wrong, but I still don’t know what the Bible says about the morals of age of consent/marriage age, or how it relates to homosexual marriage on the ’slippery slope’?
John
“History shows that, worldwide, societal ‘rules’ change all the time, whether or not you believe it is another question. These references might be of interest, as they go against your assertions:”
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html
http://www.bidstrup.com/phobiahistory.htm”
John,
I’ll even grant you that “The Secret Gospel of Mark” has been used to imply that John was Jesus’ homosexual lover. But the church NEVER accepted this text or the homosexual interpretation. As many people now know, there were many non-cannocial texts. Most were discredited, and the ones I’ve read except the Shepherd of Hermas don’t add anything to Christianity. However, where in orthodox religion, rather than interpretave art and literature is homosexual “marriage” indicated? Even the Carpocrations in their sexual orgies never claimed homosexuality is acdeptable for marriage.
Yes, society changes; I know of cultures where polygamy with both multiple male and female partners are accceppted, but until the current era I’ve never heard that homosexual unions were marraiges. Yes, I’m hung up over the definition because definitions are important to me.
My comments about the Koran come from a time when I looked into working in Saudi Arabia; while there was covert homosexuality, the texts I reviewed indicated it was not acfcepted by the Koran.
Space Puppy
One solution would be to get government completely out of the marriage business and leave it in the Churches. Then the issue would be nonexistent, the confusion between marriage as a civil issue and marriage as a spiritual issue would be gone.
Chuck
“If we extend marriage to same-sex couples, on what grounds can we deny the same to three people? Or 10? Or close relatives? Or adults and children?”
Answer: we can’t. Homosexual marriage proponents compare their cause to the Loving case, but their arguments are flawed. For one thing, marriage has historically been defined, in virtually every culture, as between a man and a woman (or, to a smaller degree, a man and many woman, or one woman and many men). Opposite sexes are essential to the definition of marriage. Race, on the other hand, is not.
As for John’s arguments about the “Bible says so,” I would point out that Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism, to name a few, recognize that marriage occurs between members of the opposite sex. Even in secular states that have been religion, such as the former Soviet Union, marriage existed as a union between a man and a woman.
And just because humans used to marry children, and still do in some parts of the world, it does not mean that we should do so, here. That is a poor argument for the abolition of social constructs that have served humans well for eons.
To justify same sex marriage, its proponents are seeking to re-define the term. This reminds me of an episode of South Park in which Cartman decided to learn to “eat” up his rear end, and poop out of his mouth. Pretty soon, the whole town was doing it. They had to re-define “eating.” In this case, people are seeking to change the definition of marriage.
And for those of you who are offended by Christianity’s teachings on homosexuality, check out the following interview with the Dalai Lama:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/01/wdalai01.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/01/ixnewstop.html
Here is an excerpt from the article:
“Although he is known for his tolerant, humane views, he is a surprisingly harsh critic of homosexuality. If you are a Buddhist, he says, it is wrong.”
Full stop.
No way round it.
“A gay couple came to see me, seeking my support and blessing. I had to explain our teachings. Another lady introduced another woman as her wife – astonishing. It is the same with a husband and wife using certain sexual practices. Using the other two holes is wrong.”
At this point, he looks across at his interpreter – who seems mainly redundant – to check that he has been using the right English words to discuss this delicate matter. The interpreter gives a barely perceptible nod.
“A Western friend asked me what harm could there be between consenting adults having oral sex, if they enjoyed it,” the Dalai Lama continues, warming to his theme. “But the purpose of sex is reproduction, according to Buddhism. The other holes don’t create life. I don’t mind – but I can’t condone this way of life.”
“However, where in orthodox religion, rather than interpretave art and literature is homosexual “marriage†indicated?”
Most Orthodox religion does not like homosexuality full stop, you’ll get no argument there.
“Even the Carpocrations in their sexual orgies never claimed homosexuality is acdeptable for marriage.”
One wouldn’t imagine that any type of union that was characterized by faithfulness and dedication to a partner would have scored the remotest interest for such a licentious/Hellenistic cult?
Remember when then-Senator Santorum was ridiculed for his slippery slope argument after sodomy was essentially legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court? Aren’t his words prophetic today? It is only a matter of time before some reprobate appellate court judge will legalize some form of deviant ‘marriage’. God have mercy on us.
John,
The Carpocratians were not a Hellenistic cult, at least not in the traditional sense. About the only Hellenistic view they held was a interpreation of Plato’s material atoms vs. spiritual issues. They were a gnostic Christian cult that believed that you had to experience everything in order to reach heaven, including murder and sexual experimentation. There was no “loving” in this group as all material/items of the flesh were basically evil and were to be experienced to move away from evil. At least that’s their philosphy.
By the way, while I read this post, I am not a fundamentalist Christian; the closest philospohy I follow is Deism.
And please forgive my typo’s – I’m doing this in between assignments at work.
Space Puppy
Another thought about LaShawn’s slippery slope:
Proponents of same-sex marriage usually dismiss their opponents’ argument that procreation through a stable family unit (ideally) is at the foundation of the institution of marriage. Same-sex advocates rightly point out the high divorce rates and cohabitation between unmarried heterosexual couples, to support their claim that the “family unit/procreation” argument is weak. They argue that consenting adults should be allowed to engage in sexual activity as they see fit, and “marry” if they so choose.
OK. If our silly archaic “marriage” definition is so flawed, I’m sure they will have no problem arguing that a 20 year old woman should have the right to marry her 45 year old father. To make this scenario easier, let’s say dad is sterile. After all, they are (1) consenting adults, and (2) they’re “in love.” They can’t have children, so inbreeding is not an issue.
Why stop with the one partner? After all, these are consenting adults we are talking about. Maybe she can marry her mother, too.
“And just because humans used to marry children, and still do in some parts of the world, it does not mean that we should do so, here. That is a poor argument for the abolition of social constructs that have served humans well for eons.”
Kim, I haven’t read anyone here argue that ‘humans used to marry children’ so we should do so here?
Children are human, I think you meant ‘adults’?
Neither have I seen how gay ‘marriage’ equates to underage marriage? That was my question, not my argument.
I also know that the Bible was used extensively against interracial marriage and ‘blacks’, so all in all I find this whole post a very confusing confection of detached subjects all being lumped together. It’s either all Biblical, or it’s relative?
Race is meaningless, unless you’re trying to get a share of some Casino profits. Polygamists everywhere wait with parted lips and bated breath for the definition of marriage to begin to be eroded.
Without getting into the deep religious and historical aspects of this, at which point I would be quite lost, I can say one thing. Laws against interracial marriage made no sense, given the fact that dividing people based upon “pure” race is impossible. Even if it could be done, is immaterial, since there are no real, significant, specific, defining differences between the so-called races.
On the other hand, there is absolutely no debate about the differences between men and women. A quick look at an anatomy book will tell us that. And anyone who has ever had a date can attest to the psychological differences as well, although the latter deal might get a fight started.
Although it doesn’t seem to bother black or multiracial communities in general, the hijacking the Loving decision by homosexual activists does frustrate the heck out of me and those of us in those groups with a solid sense of marriage. I’m with you 100% on this one.
Thanks for your response, Space Puppy:
You said:
“There was no “loving†in this group as all material/items of the flesh were basically evil and were to be experienced to move away from evil. At least that’s their philosphy.”
So why would Carpocrates comments or more specifically ‘no comments’ on homosexual ‘marriage’ be of interest to me as a litmus test for anything other than further proof of their own extreme doctrine?
respectfully,
JohnD
Rancher, you say:
“Polygamists everywhere wait with parted lips and bated breath for the definition of marriage to begin to be eroded.”
Who exactly are waiting with ‘baited breath?’
Do you mean ‘currently monogamist yet wannabe bigamists’?
Or do you mean practicing Muslim/Hindu/Mormon/Secular polygamists?
John
Race and the Bible…yeah, about that…when people want to be racist, they have to ignore the Bible to do it, and that’s exactly the case when people argue in favor of homosexual marriages.
God was never a racist. The ancestry listed for Jesus makes that pretty clear. God is a “culturalist†which is a sensible position to take, as culture is about behavior. I hope that clears things up.
And, er, Gabe…thanks. *blushes and slinks away*
With the hetero marriage failure rate over 50%, fewer children being raised by two parent households, and with only 3-5% of the population identifying as gay….do we honestly think allowing same-sex marriage will be the death to hetero marriages? Two consenting adults should be allowed to marry or at the least have civil unions. Regardless if I want to see two men or two women together….they should have that right. Wasn’t interracial marriages seen as “deviant” at one point and biblical scriptures used to justify banning it?
John,
I said that probably because I thought you saw the Carpocratians as a Hellenistic group, and we know that homosexual relationships were not uncommon in antiquity. Yes, I know it was a tortuous connection, and I was making too many “assumptions”.
I guess the point comes back to my fixiation with definitions. While I grant homosexuals have had relationships through the ages, and some have been close, I really want it called something besides marriage.
To me, gays demanding the same union as heterosexuals just seems to be mimicry; i have no issue with a civil union. But a lot want to be married within the church, and while like I said I’m a Deist, I can’t understand why gays would want to be joined under denominations that condemn the very essence of their practice.
I can find many places in the Bible that condemn homosexuality, but I can’t find any within the current canons that explicitly accept the practice.
Space Puppy
Erratum:
Hindus now widely regard polygamy as immoral.
Apologies for the mistake.
Which brings it back to my question:
Morality is either relative or it is not? So either one believes one’s own doctrine, or one doesn’t. To look around the world and history for common or negative ground is just casting a net out to trawl the ills of relativism for answers that one already has in one’s script?
Anyone?
(1) In 1878, a black man and a white woman were married in the state of Virginia. The Supreme Court of Virginia invalidated the marriage on the rationale that such a union was contrary to public morals and “so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them”.
Sound familiar?
That bigoted rationale guided courts throughout the country for decades, until the Loving case came along 40 years ago.
While the “slippery slope” issue with respect to interracial marriage may be a rhetorical question NOW, it certainly wasn’t throughout most of our country’s history. And (I hope) the same will be said one day about gay marriages.
(2) Speaking of slippery slopes, isn’t there a slope going the other way? If government can limit marriages to just men and women, what is to stop it from banning marriages for men and women who don’t desire children?
After all, LaShawn argues that a purpose of marriage is to “providing structure for family formation and rearing children”. So, following that slope, why aren’t people worried about the government at some point in the future banning certain types of heterosexual marriages (say, between the elderly)?
Preposterous, you say? Probably. But it is no more preposterous than thinking that gay marriage will lead to the sanction of adult-child marriages, polygamous marriages, or human-animal marriages.
So let’s stop the scare tactics of this “slippery slope” meme.
(3) In her Townhall piece, LaShawn tries to distinguish the interracial marriage controversy of 40 years ago with the gay marriage issue of today, by making the bizarre statement that, unlike people of color 40 years ago, “one would be hard-pressed to argue that homosexuals in America are second-class citizens” today.
Really? Hard-pressed?
Apparently, she has forgotten that — until VERY recently — certain states were attempting to MAKE ILLEGAL homosexual sex. To its credit, the Supreme Court struck those laws down (Lawrence v. Texas). But the point is, if homosexuals were truly not second class citizens, those laws wouldn’t be on the books in the first place and the Lawrence v Texas decision wouldn’t have been, and continue to be, controversial.
The sad fact is that homosexuals, by virtue of not being allowed to be married, ARE being treated like second-class citizens, simply because they do not have the same benefits and privileges of marriage that straight couple get.
What am I talking about? The Government Accounting Office has provided a list (PDF format) of 1,049 things within the law that gay couples are denied by virtue of the fact that they cannot get married. Tax benefits, veteran’s benefits, inheritance benefits, social security benefits, medical rights, legal privileges, etc. — it goes on and on and on.
Another thought. What’s to prevent two women or two men who are really heterosexual to CLAIM they are homosexual and marry in order to get the benefits that married people get, such as insurance or tax considerations? Just how is the government going verify sexual habits? You bet there’s a slippery slope and I might slide down it if I was without insurance, desperately needed it, and all I needed to do to get it was to lie and claim homosexuality and “marry” another woman who had insurance.
This whole thing is ridiculous.
In my opinion, the acceptance of gay marriage could lead to polygamy. I don’t think it could ever lead to acceptance of pedophilia.
As John D. notes and I agree morality is relative to a certain extent. However, I think than mankind has common social traits (in my case I think these are from God); and I believe that this relativity stops when hurting others. For this reason, I don’t think (hope) there will ever be an acceptance of pedophilia. People may argue over when a child becomes an adult, but few (other than NAMBLA) would accept that children under age 12 or so should have relations with an adult.
Space Puppy
Diane: “What’s to prevent two women or two men who are really heterosexual to CLAIM they are homosexual and marry in order to get the benefits that married people get”
That’s not an argument against homosexuality or marriage, but an argument against fraud.
One might ask what stops heterosexual people getting married for the attendant benefits? Answer – nothing.
John
Dianne asks:
“Another thought. What’s to prevent two women or two men who are really heterosexual to CLAIM they are homosexual and marry in order to get the benefits that married people get, such as insurance or tax considerations? Just how is the government going verify sexual habits?”
What’s to prevent heterosexual people from having “sham” marriages for exactly the same reason? You never heard of “green card” marriages?
This happens all the time, and nobody seems to worry about it.
Well, in Canada you can already have three legal parents, and the Netherlands already have “triad marriages” so I think the slippery-slope of “gay marriage” has already been proven.
The question then becomes, do we want that in the U.S.?
Sapce Puppy, you stated:
“As John D. notes and I agree morality is relative to a certain extent”
No, i asked whether or not it was one or the other.
How can it be both?
Kman–Tax benefits, veteran’s benefits, inheritance benefits, social security benefits, medical rights, legal privileges, etc.
As a hideously ugly straight woman, I don’t get any of these privileges, either.
That whole argument boils down to “I want to live a certain way but I don’t want to pay for it myself.”
And what’s next? People marrying animals? Check out marryyourpet.com and Wikipedia has an entry on human-animal marriage. Help!
JohnD,
Of course morality is not relative. But you seem to be saying that anyone who believes marriage should be defined by its’ traditional definition and who also is a christian is
a)trying to legislate their christian morality and
b) they are not allowed to use any other basis than their christianity-based morality for their reasoning.
So, are you saying christians just want to forcibly legislate christianity because as long as they are christians, their religion is the *only* motivation for everything they think and do? That they must suspend all critical thinking and only base their every thought and decision on the bible, allowing no outside sources ever to influence them in any way?
If you ask me, you are trying to have your cake and eat it to. I think (and I could be wrong) that you are implying that LaShawn’s point of view is invalid because she is only trying to create a state religion (comment #3). At the same time, you say that christians aren’t allowed to also look at other reasons that may validate and justify (or invalidate and refute) their point of view. Did I get that right? Is that rule special just for christians? I think you are showing your own prejudices, implying that christianity demands a dumbed down, non-thinking, blindly accepting and blindly rejecting human being.
I understand your point about moral relativity. But just because I don’t believe proper morality is relative does not change the fact that the general morals of different societies IS relative. Get it? Christianity does not require you to turn off your brain.
“As a hideously ugly straight woman, I don’t get any of these privileges, either.”
Self-deprication aside, you still have the choice to get married and receive the privileges and benefits of marriage, should the right man come along.
The government is not banning you as a member of a class, and any conservative/libertarian should be appalled that it tries to prevent marriages based on one’s sexual orientation.
JohnD, you say that for two people to marry soley for the benefits of marriage would be fraud.
“That’s not an argument against homosexuality or marriage, but an argument against fraud.”
But JohnD, WHY would it be fraudulent for to people to marry soley for the benefits and not have sex??
Can you explain that? I mean, if we are redifining marriage, why is your definition, which apparently does not include ‘for the benefits’ the RIGHT definition??
Kman, see number 7, already been dealt with. Gay and straight are equal before the law. There is nothing denied to them that is not also denied to straight people, and everything they are allowed to do, straight people are allowed to do. Equality before the law, it’s a beautiful thing.
So, does society hate straight people? If gay people want these rights or privileges so badly, why don’t they lobby hospitals and insurance agencies so that you don’t have to be married or blood-related to exercise certain powers? Why not fire up their attorneys to draft wills for them? Why are they insistent on pretending that they can’t do that? Why is it so important to pretend only straight people can get power of attorney? Shoot, if the former mayor of Detroit could have guardianship over Rosa Parks (they weren’t related, nor married), I cannot imagine what is stopping gay people from designating who they want to have a say in their lives. Just get a lawyer. What’s the problem?
Regarding the Bible, to reiterate, people who claim racism is justified in the Bible signal one of several possibilities: that they have never read the Bible, or else they have reading comprehension problems. They cannot make an argument in favor of racism and use the Bible to do it—they aren’t standing on the grounds of truth, only perversion of it. Again, see the ancestry of Jesus listed, and see what Jesus himself said on the matter of race. There is neither Jew nor Greek…
EVERYONE has the choice to get married. Just as a homosexual may not like the limits on that choice, so too the man who marrys Radish may not like it. *shrug*
Let’s just let Hillary’s village raise all our kids. Then there won’t be any more need for this silly old obsolete mother-father family nonsense. Or we could go all the way with the Aldous Huxley model.
Kman, see number 7, already been dealt with. Gay and straight are equal before the law. There is nothing denied to them that is not also denied to straight people, and everything they are allowed to do, straight people are allowed to do. Equality before the law, it’s a beautiful thing.
Sorry, Tyrian Purple, but you didn’t deal with it. In fact, your comments (#7 included) demonstrate all the things that gay couples have to do (sometimes at considerable time and expense) in order to get the same benefits that are granted to straight couples by virtue of the law — i.e., gays have to LOBBY to get laws changed; they have to HIRE ATTORNEYS to make sure their wills are air-tight, and so on. If they have to do all these things to achieve parity with straight people, then they are — by definition — NOT equal under the law.
Why should gays have to “get a lawyer” in order to receive benefits that other people get by virtue of being Americans? Why should they have to go through such leaps and hurdles just because some think the 14th Amendment shouldn’t apply to them?
Moreover, your list is incomplete. Let’s take just one example. There’s something in the law called the “spousal privilege”. It basically means that a wife cannot be forced to testify against her husband (or vice versa) in a criminal proceeding. (It’s similar to the attorney-client privilege, or the so-called “priest privilege”).
There is simply nothing that a gay person can do to take advantage of this legal privilege, which only applies to straight couples.
First as to the slippery slope issue…it is due to equal protection under the law. You allow same sex marriage you will eventually have to allow other forms of “marriage.”
Second on the issue of relative or fixed morality…morality is always relative based on ones upbringing, personal values and societal values.
Third my take on same sex marriage is simple..the issues can be dealt with through a civil union type contract. To my thinking “marriage” is as much a religious action as a social one.
#43 It is NOT fraud. Out of curiosity, I looked up the same sex marriage requirements of Massachusetts. The only exclusion is that you can’t marry someone of close relationship, such as your father, child, etc. So, if I read this correctly, in the state of Massachusetts, you don’t even have to be homosexual to marry. It simply allows for same sex marriage.
http://www.glad.org/marriage/howtogetmarried.html#Who_can_marry
Can you imagine if this was federal law and the monetary impact? It’s not so far fetched. Heck in Europe people don’t both to get married anymore.
Stacey, thanks for your response.
You say:
“JohnD,
Of course morality is not relative. But you seem to be saying that anyone who believes marriage should be defined by its’ traditional definition and who also is a christian is
a)trying to legislate their christian morality and
b) they are not allowed to use any other basis than their christianity-based morality for their reasoning.”
No, I am not saying that, I am asking whether the moral AND legal question of homosexual ‘marriage’ is relative or not, and (by extension) whether morality is relative or not. I cannot (philosophically) see how morality can be both God-given AND relative, yet the question is surely crucial to the issue?
You then go on to say:
“So, are you saying christians just want to forcibly legislate christianity because as long as they are christians, their religion is the *only* motivation for everything they think and do?”
No I haven’t said that, and I’m not saying that. Obviously Christians want to legislate morality, as we all do to some degree or another, but I wasn’t claiming that their religion is their *only* motivation against homosexual marriage.
You then state:
“If you ask me, you are trying to have your cake and eat it to. I think (and I could be wrong) that you are implying that LaShawn’s point of view is invalid because she is only trying to create a state religion (comment #3).”
How on earth you parsed that from my comment beggars belief. However, I will attempt to re-state: While I am strongly aware of the mainstream Christian view against homosexuality (and the Biblical references) I don’t see how homosexual marriage is a ’slippery slope’ l to underage marriage. I then asked what the Bible says about underage marriage for validation/clarity, as I am ignorant of this, and therefore aware of my not ‘grasping’ the correlation from a Christian perspective. In short, I’m trying to understand the connection.
“At the same time, you say that christians aren’t allowed to also look at other reasons that may validate and justify (or invalidate and refute) their point of view.”
No, you made that bit up I asked *why* a Christian would need validation other than the Bible? It’s an honest question. Why would a Christian seek validation against homosexual union from a Muslim, or an Animist, or a Buddhist, or a Pagan?
“I understand your point about moral relativity.”
But Stacey, ny question wasn’t a ‘point’, it was simply a question.
“But just because I don’t believe proper morality is relative does not change the fact that the general morals of different societies IS relative.”
I don’t see how that refutes my question? Surely there is only one ‘proper’ morality if one belives in the term?
“Get it? Christianity does not require you to turn off your brain.”
Never said it did, that’s why I’m (respectfully) asking questions of the Christian viewpoint with regards to relativity.
Regards,
John
Interracial marriage bans were an arbitrary block between consenting adults getting married. The courts ruled appropriately by eliminating that.
Now, if you want to really take the wind out of the gay marriage sails, get rid of state involvement in marriage at all. As long as it is a state issue, it’ll be covered by the 14th amendment’s equal rights clause.
JohnD, you say that for two people to marry soley for the benefits of marriage would be fraud.
I meant people not in love, people doing it for tax breaks etc. I thought that was what was meant.
“But JohnD, WHY would it be fraudulent for to people to marry soley for the benefits and not have sex??”
You are not only twisting my words, but putting some of your own in there.
People can get married and love each other and practice celibacy. ‘Fraud’ in this instance would be more correctly ‘posturing’. Although not illegal, it’s still dishonest. I didn’t mean ‘fraud’ in the legal sense, just in the fraudulent sense, as per Diane’s example in #33.
“Can you explain that? I mean, if we are redifining marriage, why is your definition, which apparently does not include ‘for the benefits’ the RIGHT definition??”
That’s a strawman argument, I’m not redefining anything, i was just saying that heterosexuals can still pretend to be in love for marital (tax/legal) benefits, so the argument in #33 was weak.
Hope that makes my position clearer.
Regards,
JohnD
“As John D. notes and I agree morality is relative to a certain extentâ€
No, i asked whether or not it was one or the other.
How can it be both?”
Partially bad wording on my part. You asked if was relative and never said “to a certain extent”. My apologies.
I guess I’m confused, and that’s why I come to these sites. I think morality is defined within societies, and those outside the mainstream have difficulty adapting when their own soul tells them otherwise.
But I still think there is some greater order inherent in man that makes some items specifically taboo despite culturally acceptance.
Thanks for replying,
Space Puppy
JohnD
You said, “How on earth you parsed that from my comment beggars belief”
Okay, maybe I misinterpreted your comments in #3.
Are you saying that YOU personally, JohnD, think that homosexual marriage and polygamy is a ’slippery-slope’ because the Bible says so?
If so, forgive me for assuming that you were attempting to put words in someone else’s mouth (when you replied “Answer = the Bible says so.”)
I didn’t realize you were a christian and were speaking your own beliefs.
Kman, hello—read it again. Those are all “burdens” STRAIGHT people have by virtue of the law. Geeze. What is so hard to understand about that point? Again, why the need to pretend it isn’t so that STRAIGHT people are denied all those benefits if they are not married or not a blood relation? STRAIGHT people bear those burdens, and as a greater percentage of the population, STRAIGHT people bear it in greater numbers. I guess you’re conceding the point by ignoring it?
STRAIGHT unmarried couples need a will. STRAIGHT unmarried couples can’t have each other’s insurance. STRAIGHT people cohabiting in either a sexual or non-sexual relationship have to get attorneys. Lana Turner (famous actress back in the day) left her estate to her maid. Without a lawyer, she could not do that. STRAIGHT people have to go through all the things gay people complain about. Every last thing you listed is a burden shouldered by STRAIGHT people every day. Is that clear enough?
Let me try to explain what I was saying about moral relativity one more time.
I do not believe morality is relative.
I don’t think christians who lived 200 years ago believed morality is relative.
I believe morality as I see it is correct.
I am willing to believe most of you believe morality as YOU see it is correct.
I think the same is true of Muslims, Buddists, Athiests, etc.
I think the morality that I believe is correct can be RELATED to that of the christian 100 years ago, yours, etc. Why is my version a little different than that of that christian? We are imperfect human beings and our interpretation of correct morality is necessarily not perfect.
So, I believe true morality is NOT relative, but that hardly means I cannot relate morality as I practice it to morality as someone else practices it. I readily admit that had I had different life experiences, I might have a different understanding of correct morality. But this is not because what is correct has changed. This is because I am an inperfect human who must interpret the world the best I can.
Why are some people so anxious to tear up the fabric of society? The agenda is clear, but the motivation is muddy.
#55 Tyrian Purple is exactly correct. Now, in the State of Massachusetts, two homosexual OR heterosexual people of the same sex can marry and receive those benefits (well those that are applicable at the state level). Although homosexuals argued for the law, it cannot be denied to heterosexuals of the same sex either. So, you see, we already have a slippery slope. I can easily see other groups coming forward, such as polygamists and saying hey, why not me?
Tyrian Purple:
Kman, hello—read it again. Those are all “burdens†STRAIGHT people have by virtue of the law… Every last thing you listed is a burden shouldered by STRAIGHT people every day.
There are also burdens that GAY people have to go through as well. I fully admit that, in the eyes of the law, straight UMARRIED people and gay UNMARRIED people are all pretty much on equal footing, whether it comes to wills or anything else I’ve listed.
But that all changes when we start to talk about MARRIAGE — the decision held by two people to commit their lives to each other. To equate “married” gays with “unmarried” straight people is comparing apples to oranges.
What’s next? Are you going to say that Rosa Parks wasn’t discriminated against, because sometimes whites rode on the back of the bus, too? I think that is rather blatently avoiding the issue.
I would suggest that the argument in 33 is weak only if you don’t believe the purpose of marriage is to gain the benefits. As far as I can tell, most proponents of same sex marriage seem to be saying that that IS the reason we should legalize same sex marriage, and the reason civil unions are not acceptable.
Kman,
Can you explain why, in your view, unmarried straight people should have burdens that married homosexual (or straight) people don’t have?
Kman, deliberately mixing racial segregation with the desire for homosexuals to be “married” is disingenuous, at best.
“Can you explain why, in your view, unmarried straight people should have burdens that married homosexual (or straight) people don’t have?”
For me, this isn’t about burdens. It’s about privileges and benefits. I (as a single straight man) don’t feel I have an additional “burden” simply because the married couple next door gets, say, a tax benefit by virtue of being married.
But if I were gay, and I fell in love and decided to make a livelong commitment to someone, I would wonder why I don’t get the same benefits (tax-wise or anything else wise) as my heterosexually married neighbors next door.
Unmarried straight people and unmarried gay people share the same benefits AND burdens. Which is as it should be in a society that is about equality.
But only one of those groups — the straight group — has the option to move to a different status and receive the benefits of marriage (so long as marriage is defined in an exclusionary fashion).
To say it’s not discrimination against gays to forbid their marriage is like saying it’s okay to forbid women from driving because, after all, there are millions of people (under the age of 16) who have to bear the burden of not being allowed to drive.
Stacey & Diane, I still can’t see how one would argue that #33 is an illustration of a ’slippery slope’.
Heterosexuals of any stripe/situation can *already* claim to be in love and marry in order to get the benefits that married people get, such as insurance or tax considerations?
I don’t get it? We should not allow people who are really in love from marrying because someone might *claim* to be in love and get the same benefits?
Regards,
John
But Kman, they DO have the same option to move into a different status and receive the benefits of marriage (same as the guy who marries Radish
).
KMan said:
“Unmarried straight people and unmarried gay people share the same benefits AND burdens. Which is as it should be in a society that is about equality.”
Kman, you’re just not TWISTING it the right way, come on! Can’t you see that unmarried straight people and married homosexuals should have the SAME burdens. Tsk.
JohnD
If anyone is avoiding the issue, it’s you. Let me be clear. All along the argument was that gay people are unfairly discriminated against, because they have to go through hoops that straight people don’t. Except for one thing: straight people have those hoops, too, a fact which exposes that argument for the fraud that it is.
Marriage is not set up like a clique to exclude gay people, because gay people are beside the point. Marriage has a valid function independent of whether or not gay people exist, and with that function comes rights and privileges that unmarried people have to walk an extra step to obtain. A married man doesn’t need to write a will if he wants to leave everything to his wife. It’s a given that she gets what’s his. A single man has to spell out what he wants his girlfriend to have, otherwise the brother he never speaks to might get it instead.
Rosa Parks did not have the right to sit up front, true. Only white people did. Gay white people included, but a straight black woman excluded. But these days, gay white people are not allowed to discriminate against straight black women. I consider that a happy thing, don’t you?
A gay man can marry a woman (and some do), same as a straight man. But straight women can’t marry straight women or lesbians. It’s equal though, because the lesbian is similarly barred: she can’t marry a straight woman or a lesbian.
You brought up green card marriages, well it’s equal there, too. A straight man wanting to bring over his gay foreign pal can’t marry him to do it, but on the other hand he could ask his lesbian friend to marry the guy instead, and the reason is because marriage is defined equally: only men can marry women, and it makes no difference what the man’s intent is when he marries.
Once again: gay people have the same burdens as straight people. Gay people have the same benefits as straight people. Gay people have the same rights as straight people. Gay people are denied the same things as straight people.
If gay people cannot marry other gay people, so what? Again, if insurance is such a bothersome problem for instance, why can’t they ask to extend coverage to any cohabiting people? Straight and gay alike would benefit from that. Why do they need to be married? What’s the point of demanding that, really, when a simple solution is staring them in the face?
Well, Personally, I want to marry my Toaster.
Seriously, Marriage *IS* between a man and a woman, period..there is NO way to argue that.
Sorry ..
And, whether you call it ‘burdens’ or ‘privileges and benefits’, I still don’t understand how you feel comfortable denying it to unmarried people.
“But Kman, they DO have the same option to move into a different status and receive the benefits of marriage”
And technically speaking, Rosa Parks had the “option” of bleaching her skin and moving to the front of the bus.
But if you are suggesting* that a gay man marry a straight woman merely so that he can receive the benefits of marriage (tax breaks, etc.), doesn’t that gut the conservative argument that we as a society should be concerned about the “sanctity of marriage”? I can think of nothing more abhorrent to the concept of marriage than a “sham marriage” arranged merely to get a tax benefit.
[*Not sure if you are or aren't]
“Gay people have the same rights as straight people.”
Tyrian Purple, that’s quite a factoid. Is it correct?
I beliee gay couples don’t have the following rights, as they are not allowed to marry. Please correct me if I’m wrong:
Hospital Visitation Rights – Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured partner in the hospital.
Health insurance – Same-sex couples have no automatic right to visit one another in the hospital or make medical decisions for one another. Having medical power of attorney documents may help, but there’s no guarantee and hospital will recognize those documents.
Spousal Privilege – Same-sex couples have no right to refuse to testify against one another. So everything you say, write, email, fax, etc. to your partner is admissible in court and can be used against. you.
Inheritance rights – Same-sex couples have no automatic rights to inheritance in the absence of a will.
Family leave – Same-sex couples have no legally protected right to unpaid leave to care for an ill spouse.
Pensions – Most pension plans only pay survivor benefits to a legal spouse. Same-sex partners get no pension support for surviving partners.
Nursing homes – Same-sex couples have no legal right to live together in a nursing home and spend their final years together.
Home protection – The laws that protect married couples from being forced to sell their homes to cover high nursing home bills don’t apply to same-sex couples. A same-sex partner can be forced to sell, and forced out of the home to satisfy nursing home bills if he/she lives in the home but does not own it.
Retirement savings – Married people can roll over a deceased spouses 401(k) into an IRA without paying taxes. Same-sex partners must withdraw everything, pay income taxes on it, and lose the tax deferral benefits.
Taxes – Marries spouses may inherit unlimited property from a deceased spouse, tax free. Same-sex partners pay taxes on any amount over set state and federal limits.
Social Security benefits – Unless you’re married, you get no Social Security from a dead spouse. If you have kids, they will get it and you may be custodian of it until they’re adults.
I wonder will you deny that same-sex couples are denied these rights, or will you say “so what”?
“Heterosexuals of any stripe/situation can *already* claim to be in love and marry in order to get the benefits that married people get, such as insurance or tax considerations?”
Of course they can.
“I don’t get it? We should not allow people who are really in love from marrying because someone might *claim* to be in love and get the same benefits?”
I don’t think you’ll find that I ever said that. I am not the one worried about other people getting benefits. I believe I am the one who pointed out the absurdity of calling marrying solely for the benefits “fraud”.
But, calling it fraud does follow logically for those who are claiming we should redefine marriage for the sake of receiving benefits. And is that not the most common reason given for redifining marriage? Of course it is. Just look at this thread (or any other on the subject). I think the whole thing points out the absurdity and basic dishonesty of the whole movement.
If it really is about getting those ‘marriage benefits’ to those who don’t want to marry in the traditional way, but do want to marry in a ‘new’ way, I guess the benefits are what is all-important, right? And then I guess we’d better worry about fraud. Can’t have those non-marrying types getting the benefits without – what? you tell me. You are the one whose first instinct was to call it fraud.
Of course, I don’t believe that the legal ‘benefits’ of marriage have anything to do with it. As Tyrian Purple has so ably pointed out, those benefits can be obtained otherwise. I think the real agenda is clearly not about ‘benefits’.
“Kman, you’re just not TWISTING it the right way, come on! Can’t you see that unmarried straight people and married homosexuals should have the SAME burdens. Tsk.”
Again, JohnD, I am just pointing out the absurdity of the claim that the purpose of marriage should be the legal benefits. If so, you’d have to explain the purpose in excluding those benefits to those who do not marry. Why do you not want to include them???
And, whether you call it ‘burdens’ or ‘privileges and benefits’, I still don’t understand how you feel comfortable denying it to unmarried people.
We deny privileges all the time. For example, under the law in most states, thirteen year olds and blind people aren’t allowed to have driving privileges. I’m perfectly comfortable with that, because there are legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for denying certain privileges to certain categories of people. In that particular example, the reason has to with safety concerns. Young and/or blind drivers create the risk of physical harm to themselves and other people on the road.
But what is the non-discriminatory reason for denying privileges and benefits of marriage to gay unions?
If your point is that heterosexual married couples shouldn’t be granted ANY special privileges over single people, then that is a valid point, and I don’t necessarily disagree.
But if the law is going to give benefits to couples who choose to spend their lives together, then it should give those benefits to ALL couples who make that decision — whether they be interracial, gay, tall, fat, elderly, whatever. Not only SHOULD the law be non-discriminatory, but the Fourteenth Amendment says that it MUST be non-discriminatory.
“But what is the non-discriminatory reason for denying privileges and benefits of marriage to gay unions?”
Because gay ‘unions’ do not meet the definition of marriage. duh.
Or the purpose
nor do they benefit society.
“Again, JohnD, I am just pointing out the absurdity of the claim that the purpose of marriage should be the legal benefits.”
I never made that claim. The purpose of marriage manifold, principally about love and family/societal stability. Diane in #33 stated that gay couples marrying would encourage straight people to make false claims on ‘marital benefits’ by posing as homsexual sopouses. I consider that a weak argument, ridiculous in fact.
You then say:
“If so, you’d have to explain the purpose in excluding those benefits to those who do not marry. Why do you not want to include them???”
That’s another fine mess you got me into, Stacey (twirls shirt collar).
I am only interested in the rights of homosexual couples who wish to be married and make that commitment being denied that right.
As someone quoted recently I read:
“Being a gay dad, it’s a big sticking point for me. After all, do gays with children need less resources for their families than heterosexuals? Do they deserve less?”
May I ask you that question Stacey? After all, I have patiently and politely answered all of your suppositions and contortions!
Regards,
JohnD
Let me put it another way. Why would I want to encourage and reward gay ‘unions’?
Note that I did not say anything about preventing gay ‘unions’.
Let’s don’t forget the goats and sheep.
yah, they need their ‘benefits’ too!
Shorter Tyrian Purple:
“What the hell is Rosa Parks complaining about? She can get to her destination at the back of the bus, and if that’s too much of a burden for her, she can walk, take a cab, and do what white people sometimes do. Why does she NEED to sit at the front anyway?”
I’m suggesting you are bigoted, Tyrian, but I’m trying to demonstrate the logic you exhibit when discussing gay marriage, i.e., if gay couples can acheive those benefits (the benefits that straight couples enjoy) through some other means, then there is no discrimination.
My point is that if gay couples HAVE TO achieve those benefits through some other means, then by definition they are disparately treated in the eyes of the law. Which means there IS discrimination.
Redbeard wrote:
“Why are some people so anxious to tear up the fabric of society? The agenda is clear, but the motivation is muddy.”
We call it “the Satan.”
“But if the law is going to give benefits to couples who choose to spend their lives together”.
The law is not intended to benefit ‘couples who spend their lives together’.
They laws are intended to benefit, and thereby, encourage the institution (marriage, as it is traditionally defined obviously) that benefits society. Marriage is the best proven method to promulgate the future of our vitalic society with contributing citizens, thereby ensuring our continuance.
Oh blood hell. John D, read post 7. Read the solution. Does a straight gal want to visit her male friend in the hospital? Yes? Okay. But she’s not his wife or his sister? Then she may be out of luck, right? Tell me what’s exotic about this problem. Explain to me, because I’m utterly missing it: why can’t she and others like her lobby to allow visitation to those outside the immediate family? My mother and I were allowed to visit her boss in the hospital. Explain why gay marriage is necessary to get this privilege for everyone, instead of just asking that all hospitals extend that right. Okay? Do that and get back to me.
Two college girls are sharing an apartment to stretch their funds further. One has insurance the other doesn’t. Why must one girl marry another before she can access this insurance? Why shouldn’t she lobby to get insurance companies to allow cohabiting people period to cover each other instead? What’s invalid about this solution? Why is marriage is the only solution?
One nun lives with another nun. They’re not shagging. They’ve known each other all their lives. One nun has a heart attack and is on life support. Does the other nun have the right to ask the doctors to take every measure they can, or pull the plug? If you answered no, that’s true—that is, unless the sick nun took legal steps to ensure the healthy nun had a say. Tell me why they had to get married for this to happen. Tell me why the best way to ensure the sick nun’s wishes are enforced is for her to get married to the other nun. You can’t. There isn’t a reason. None. That’s the point. Is that clear enough? What are you still confused about?
Lana Turner was not shagging her maid. She still got to leave her an inheritance. Know why? She got a lawyer and wrote a will. Gay people can do that, too. Did you know that? Gay people are allowed to make a last will and testament, and have it enforced in court. Wow, what a world.
Tax rights. Again, if this is such a problem, why not lobby on behalf of cohabiting people? This way, two brothers who run a business can get the same tax benefits as married people. Why is marriage the only solution?
Now, will you deny that straight people don’t have those same problems? Every last one you listed—EVERY LAST ITEM is a problem for STRAIGHT people. EVERY LAST ONE. Deny that if you need to. Pretend only gay people have these problems if you must. Pretend straight people have never faced this if you need to.
I think I get what’s confusing you—you have no idea what equality before the law means. I don’t know how to make this any simpler. Equality before the law means that the law applies to everyone, no matter what. It means that gay people don’t get a privilege over and above straight people. It means gay people are not denied any right straight people aren’t denied.
Maybe you say it’s not fair that two men can’t marry each other. But whether they are gay or straight, they cannot marry. That’s what equality before the law means. In some states, people can’t marry their cousins. Chaldeans can’t complain about it, though, because Irish people can’t marry their cousins, and nor can Japanese, and nor can Jamaicans, even if none of those people want to marry their cousins as Chaldeans. Equality before the law. Still confused? Then pray for understanding, I don’t have what it takes to help you.
Once again WHY would we WANT to benefit ‘couples who spend their lives together’?
What possible rationale would there be for excluding brothers who spend their lives together? Sisters? Friends? ETC.
I wonder will you deny that same-sex couples are denied these rights, or will you say “so what�
Well, the poster said that gay “people” have the same rights as non-gay people, not that gay “couples” have the same rights as non-gay “couples”. Thus, a gay man can marry anyone that any heterosexual man can marry. Thus they have the same marriage rights as any man. What they don’t have is the right to legally marry the person of their choice, but equal rights don’t mean equal rights for each person to pursue their desires. That is why folks who prefer marijuana use can’t argue discrimination because those who prefer alcohol are free to indulge.
If there could be any argument regarding discrimination, it would have to be gender discrimination since a gay man doesn’t have the right to marry who a woman can marry. But gender discrimination is the most acceptable form of discrimination in our society which is why a man who purposely goes into the ladies restroom can be arrested while a female who walks in there won’t.
“But what is the non-discriminatory reason for denying privileges and benefits of marriage to gay unions?â€
Because gay ‘unions’ do not meet the definition of marriage. duh.
The LEGAL definition of marriage can be whatever we want it to be. Just like the legal definition of “speeding” can be 55 mph, 65 mph or whatever we (as a society) choose.
People can make arguments why the speeding limit should be X as opposed to Y. By the same token, I would like to know the non-discriminatory reason why the marriage law should exclude homosexuals.
I gave you that.
It’s the same non-discriminatory reason it excludes pedophiles, groups of more than 2, donkeys, etc.
I think I get what’s confusing you—you have no idea what equality before the law means. I don’t know how to make this any simpler. Equality before the law means that the law applies to everyone, no matter what. It means that gay people don’t get a privilege over and above straight people. It means gay people are not denied any right straight people aren’t denied.
Can gay people marry the person of their choice?
Can straight people marry the person of their choice?
If the answer to those questions is different, then under YOUR definition, there is not “equality before the law”.
If your answer to both those questions is “yes”, then I have one further question:
Does the law treat those marriages equally?
If your answer to THAT question is no, then (again) under YOUR definition there is not “equality before the law”.
“It’s the same non-discriminatory reason it excludes pedophiles, groups of more than 2, donkeys, etc.”
At which point we descend into EXACTLY the same kind of dehumanizing propaganda that fed the Jews, Gays and Gypsies to the ovens.
I’m done here.
Disgusted.
JohnD
“It’s the same non-discriminatory reason it excludes pedophiles, groups of more than 2, donkeys, etc.”
Fine, but what IS that reason?
“Can gay people marry the person of their choice?
Can straight people marry the person of their choice?”
The answer to both is the same: Maybe. They need the consent of the other person. They also need to choose a person it is legal to marry. If they do marry, yes, the law treats the marriage equally.
“Fine, but what IS that reason?”
Are you SURE you’re not being purposely obtuse, lil’ feller?
Because they do not meet the definition of marriage, like I said. Like you said, the legal definition of marriage can be whatever we want it to be. I want it to be the traditional one. For the reasons I gave above. And I note that you have not disputed those reasons.
Nope. Neither can straight people. A Chaldean man in the wrong state cannot marry his girl cousin. Neither can the Bahamian. That’s why they’re equal.
Nope. The Chaldean man was straight in my example above. We’re good. Brush up on your civics.
There seems to be a lot of haggling over the legal definition of marriage. I know that homosexuality has been accepted at times in older cultures; has homosexual marriage ever been accepted in these same cultures?
Space Puppy
Stacey:
“The laws are intended to benefit, and thereby, encourage the institution (marriage, as it is traditionally defined obviously) that benefits society.”
Doesn’t society want to encourage marriage among the homosexual population as well? Doesn’t it benefit from that?
If not, why not? I can see plenty of upsides for promoting gay marriage (especially in this day of AIDS) but what, if anything, is the downside?
“Marriage is the best proven method to promulgate the future of our vitalic society with contributing citizens, thereby ensuring our continuance.”
Re: “promulgate the future …with contributing citizens”. So then why isn’t the government forbidding — or even discouraging — marriages between straight couples who can’t, or have have no intention of “promulgating” (i.e., having kids)?
My uncle — age 60 — just got re-married to a woman who is 63. Neither have had kids, and they’re certainly not planning to have any at this point in their lives. They’re a sweet couple — very happy. Are you telling me the government FROWNS upon their union?
P.S. Re: “thereby ensuring our existence”. Whaaa? Are we on the verge of distinction?
Kman, seriously—brush up on your civics. This is literally elementary stuff. I’m not allowed to steal someone’s BMW. I don’t want one. I still can’t steal it. I’m equal to the person who wants a BMW, because they can’t steal one, either.
Some people want drugs to dull their pain. I don’t. But we are equal because we’re both barred from doing weed.
Some people want to drive without their seatbelts. I wear mine. But if I get caught without it, I get a ticket, same as the (at times rabid) people who don’t want to wear one.
How much simpler do you need this made for you?
Even though there are many who would call me a heathen
I’m inclined to go along with Batyah’s take on why this homosexual “marriage” agenda is being pushed so very hard right now. I have no other choice, since no other reason seems applicable. Defining Satan is problematic for me (a musclebound half-naked guy with horns and hooves – don’t think so) but something evil is definitely at work here.
Presumably there is roughly the same percentage of homosexuals in today’s population as 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago. Yet no such agenda of homosexual “rights” or homosexual “marriage” existed prior to the free-fall of society which began in the late ’60s.
This latest nonsense seems to be only a facet of the broad leftist initiative to destroy society by redefining everything to the exclusion of right and wrong, or good and bad. I was there when the battle cry arose of “If it feels good, do it.” That was horribly wrong in the ’60s, and has only gotten worse with passing decades.
So go ahead, leftists, keep pushing your agenda. Just be aware that there will be a push back from those of us who are sick and tired of the nonsense and who refuse to crumble and cave in to your pressure.
Do I sound angry? Good. I was hoping I wasn’t being too vague.
Ty Purple:
“Some people want drugs to dull their pain. I don’t. But we are equal because we’re both barred from doing weed.”
You’re still not getting it. We live in a free society. That’s the starting point. From that simple basic premise, our government can and does prevent certain behaviors where the societal interest outweighs the God-given freedoms.
I can give you reasons why certain behaviors (the taking of certain drugs, the non-use of seat belts, and theft) are reasonable restrictions of freedom — that is, why the societal interests trump individual freedom.
To say that homosexual marriage is against the law is to presuppose that “the law” is immutable. It’s not. There is an open question on the table as to WHY bans on homosexual marriage SHOULD BE the law. Your persistent argument that “it is the law and it is applied equally” doesn’t address that question; it avoids it.
Sorry, JohnD, I only just noticed your post #78. You say:
“I am only interested in the rights of homosexual couples who wish to be married and make that commitment being denied that right.”
What ‘right’??? Why would that be a right? And why would the word ‘marriage’ be so important? And why are you “only interested in the rights of homosexual couples”? Why do you wish to exclude others? Or if you, as you say, are not claiming it is about the legal benefits’ of marriage, why is it a ‘right’ to use the word marriage to describe the union?
I am not the one making contortions, and I don’t appreciate you saying that I have. You however, have danced all about every time you have been refuted. You most certainly have NOT answered all of my questions or replied to all of my points. For instance:
Are you a Christian who believes same-sex marriage is a slippery slope because the bible says so or were you putting words in other peoples’ mouths?
You have claimed that I am twisting other peoples words #66, and yet in one same post you claim that you are not trying to redifine marriage, and you want marriage to include same sex couples. ???? Explain?
On this thread, it seems that if you don’t have the answer when someone refutes you, you ignore it and make a different attack – another example- Tyrian Purples reply to you.
You say it’s not about the benefits and then want to know what about that gay dad’s resources. WHat exactly are we talking about?
You claim I have made suppositions, and I certainly have – while stating so and freely admitting that I may be wrong about the supposition, in advance. What is wrong with that, particularly when you have been less than clear in stating what you mean? (sometimes, quite purposely, I might add..as in #3)
Can gay people marry the person of their choice?
Nope. Neither can straight people. A Chaldean man in the wrong state cannot marry his girl cousin. Neither can the Bahamian. That’s why they’re equal.
I’m not talking about a particular example. Obviously I mean — ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, can gay people marry the person of their choice?
The fact that you have to get “cute” to answer these questions shows the intellectual dishonesty of your position.
Before reading any of those posts — I’ll state I am holding out for the right to marry my cat. I would certainly like to take a tax deduction for her as a married instead of single taxpayer. Given that we are both females I guess then it would also qualify as a homosexual marriage. I really do love my cat. I am also thinking about adopting another cat so I guess if I liked the new one enough I would also probably want to marry her (no Tom cats — even neutered Toms for me)
Shouldn’t I have the right to marry my cat? It is a loving stable relationship of two beings supportive of each other. Oh wait, just because the Bible doesn’t provide for me marrying my cat does not mean that marriage shouldn’t be restructed to allow it. After all the Bible is just some ancient book written by a bunch of old men without any relevance to the world today –we all know that in today’s world human beings have very close relationships with their pets and consider them family — this must be an oversight in the Bible. (Forgive me Lord for being a scarcastic a@@.)
“I can see plenty of upsides for promoting gay marriage”
I can’t. *shrug* Maybe you can enlighten me.
“So then why isn’t the government forbidding — or even discouraging — marriages between straight couples who can’t, or have have no intention of “promulgating†(i.e., having kids)?”
For the same reason they don’t forbid other behavior that doesn’t necessarily benefit society. Also, because we can’t legislate intentions…I would think this is obvious. Do you think it’s reasonable to require proof of fertility and intentions, or do you think that maybe, just maybe, we can accept that not every single marriage will result in the maximum benefit to society, but that, overall, many more DO than do NOT?
“Are you telling me the government FROWNS upon their union?”
ummm…..I can’t really say I recall saying any such thing.
“Whaaa? Are we on the verge of distinction”
No. I AM saying our particular society and way of life has no particular reason or right to continue on indefinitely as it is unless we make an effort to promote the good parts of it…do you not realize that for most of history, and even now in other parts of the world, other societies don’t have nearly so nice and cushy an arrangement as we have here? Do you think it is the natural born right of individuals born in this particular geographical section of the world to have it so cushy??? Or do you think, perhaps, we have done a few things ‘right’ and might want to continue doing so?
“If we extend marriage to same-sex couples, on what grounds can we deny the same to three people?”
It depends on what grounds we extended marriage to same sex couples. Which is why I find the lawsuit-driven approach so dangerous.
If the population of a state decides to create SSM because they think it’s a good idea, no major problem is created. Why not have group marriage? Because the voters *don’t* think it’s a good idea. Why don’t other states have SSM? Because the voters *there* don’t think it’s a good idea. Think the voters are wrong? Start trying to persuade them.
It’s when a judge decides that there’s a *right* to SSM that it becomes very hard to logically argue why whatever reasoning they used to create it doesn’t also apply to group marriage. Also, given the amount of creativity required to find such a result in laws written by people who clearly did not intend it, the long-run effect is to make the laws that legislatures write meaningless, and the appointment of judges their only meaningful act. That would result in judicial nominations becoming ever more of an ugly, high-stakes political fight. Hmmm, are we seeing anything like that lately?
“I can give you reasons why certain behaviors (the taking of certain drugs, the non-use of seat belts, and theft) are reasonable restrictions of freedom.”
Good. Explain why the use of seat belts are reasonable restrictions of freedom.
Oh, but one caution. Be carefull about claiming that there are medical costs to society…..’cause I can do a LOTTTTTA restricting of YOUR freedoms if that is the only necessary qualification.
“Shouldn’t I have the right to marry my cat? It is a loving stable relationship of two beings supportive of each other.”
Yeah? What does the cat say?
I love sarcasm and applaud your post. But moving beyond that, and addressing the point beneath your sarcasm….
Marriage requires mutual consent. Can your cat give consent? How can you tell? Are you sure it just doesn’t want food? Or that it simply likes the tone of your voice?
That’s why you can’t marry your cat, and slippery slope arguments are silly.
“and slippery slope arguments are silly…”
Yeah, like when my state decided to make traveling in a vehicle without a seatbelt illegal…the legislature swore over and over that, while you could be ticketed for failure to wear a seatbelt if pulled over for ANOTHER reason, police couldn’t and would NEVER be given the right to pull you over JUST because you were not wearing a seatbelt…yeah, that lasted 2 years. We we nuts to yell about ’slippery slope’ then, weren’t we?
And like how we could choose to refuse ‘extraordinary life saving measures’..those people who screamed slippery slope, claiming that the next thing you know, spouses and judges will be deciding for you that you won’t be given water..those people were nuts…
yeah, that slipperly slope stuff NEVER happens!!
JohnD says
“History shows that, worldwide, societal ‘rules’ change all the time….”
An important question is “How do they change?”
Historically, in the US they change through the action of elected legislators. Big changes sometimes require the cooperation of a large number of legislators at both the state and national levels (constitutional amendment). Sometimes they change because of judicial review of legislative actions. Lately the judical review part has become more and more prominent, happening more frequently, on larger issues, and in a much more proactive way – setting outcomes rather than just telling legislators “You can’t do that, try again.”
I think it’s a bad trend. We have judges setting abortion policy, and it’s twisted out politics. We have judges deciding which kids will go to which schools, and our schools have suffered. Do we really want judges defining marriage?
I’d rather trust the voters. Voters can be kinda stupid, but judges can be astoundingly nuts.
I question when did our choice of sex partner become elevated to that same status as race? When did we elevate sex acts to the same status of a relationship based upon love, honor and cherish? It seems to me that a person can prefer or not prefer sex in any number of ways or circumstances. The world has taken the sexual relationship and twisted it all around so that living in the world, living in the flesh is the only thing of importance. The world has then taken sexual relationships and elevated it to the same status and value as marriage. Sexual relationships is but one component or aspect of marriage I don’t recall anywhere in the Bible that the marriage relationship is addressed exclusively as a sexual relationship.
I don’t want my life exclusively defined by and limited to the nature of my sex life. God created me to be so much more than a body for sexual intercourse. Otherwise, then if marriage is defined by the sexual relationship then plastic dolls and vibrators must be included in the category of potential marriage partners.
“LaShawn equated homosexual marriage with underage marriage. ”
I don’t think she did. I think what she equated is the *reasoning* required to *derive a “right”* to either, and the *political process* required to make either one the law of the land.
As a practical question, if judges can redefine marriage once, why can’t they do it again?
“I can see plenty of upsides for promoting gay marriageâ€
I can’t. *shrug* Maybe you can enlighten me.
I don’t know. Perhaps you prefer that gays NOT practice monogomy?
But even if you don’t see an upside, you write that governments “don’t forbid other behavior that doesn’t necessarily benefit society.”
Fine. Then why is it trying to forbid gay marriage? It’s not like gay marriage is going to result in mass conversion to homosexuality, and nobody will propogate any more. As a big fan of heterosexual propogation (as well as heterosexual marriage) myself, I can assure you that’s not going to happen. If it is not outright prejudice against homosexuals, then what exactly is going on?
Do you think it is the natural born right of individuals born in this particular geographical section of the world to have it so cushy??? Or do you think, perhaps, we have done a few things ‘right’ and might want to continue doing so?
We have done a few things right — most notably doing turnabouts when we have done things WRONG. Sometimes (particularly in the case of race) it took centuries. The same could be said of women (who couldn’t vote for most of this country’s history).
As a country, we have a remarkable ability (albeit a SLOW one) to recognize that it is fundamentally unjust and unfair to discriminate. The gay marriage issue, like any other civil right issue, is just another one, and the arguments against same-sex marriage are scarily similar to the arguments made against interracial marriage, desegregation, women’s suffrage, and a host of other things.
Nobody is asking you, or ANY individual, to “like” homosexuals or homosexuality. But do we really want to live in a government that treats a significant proportion of the population one way, and the rest of the people a different way — for no justifiable reason other than we just don’t like those practices?
I submit that it is not only discriminatory, but unChristian.
My cat loves me. The cat use to belong to my ex. But when I left he told me that as much as he loved the cat, the cat adored me and was broken hearted I was gone. All she did was sit in the window and look very dejected. When we were together the ex fed the cat, took care of her, waited on her every need, but I am the one that she followed around and wanted to be near — so I think that is implied consent. Yep, I think I should be able to marry this cat. But seeing as how we are determining the rights to marry based upon sexual relationship — I guess the cat marriage is out. Although I understand that there are some members of our society you would qualify for marriage with other animals.
Late to the thread here, so I won’t address the other hundred-and-whatever comments, I’ll just answer the original question.
When, in December ‘01, my (”white”) self was preparing to marry my (”black”) fiancee, we discovered that until not too long ago, our marriage would’ve been illegal. We were stationed together in Alabama- and as she is from around Chicago and I am from around Detroit, we both thought the notion of us not being allowed to marry because of race was laughable.
After I stopped laughing, I was thankful for things like the Loving case. I absolutely would’ve taken the issue to the Supreme Court nyself, but I didn’t really have time for all that nonsense, so I’m glad he did it for me. The thought that two soldiers in the employ of the federal government not being allowed to marry was and is ludicrous. (”There’s no race in the Army! We’re all green here!”) We took that mantra a step further- we chose to see us as God sees us, as two Christian Gentiles. The End, no strings attached.
So if I ever actually had someone tell me, as part of an “interracial” couple (sneer quotes present to indicate my inability to see a difference between white and black), that I should be understanding of two guys wanting to get married, I’d be hard pressed not to slap him. There’s no comparison to even make. If my wife and I are interracial, so is an Irish-American marrying an English-American. But “marriage” means and implies man and woman, husband and wife. Saying that two lesbians living together is the same as my family’s situation is like saying that a grain of sand is the same as a blade of grass. Words have meanings for a reason.
Incidentally, there was no rip on ‘Bama in that first paragraph. I went Down South early in my Army career and was surprised to find that, in my experience, Southerners (white and black) are much less racist than Northerners.
/puddle of consciousness mode
OT, sorry- hey La Shawn, the Christian-Newsom story was on the front page of the Tribune yesterday. They were asking why nobody’s reported it. Hmm.
sorry #111 should read — The sexual relationship is but one component or aspect of marriage…
“yeah, that slipperly slope stuff NEVER happens!!”
40 years ago, during the interracial marriage controversy, they said it could lead to people marrying their pets, too. In that time, I have yet to meet a single person who (non-sarcastically) wanted to marry their pet.
I’m not saying there’s NEVER a slippery slope; I’m just saying it is a rhetorical tool to scare people.
I know you’re exercising creative license and personal opinion when you call homosexuality a lifestyle choice, but seriously, how would you know?
It’s unfortunate and hypocritical that you would perpetuate division – especially under the circumstances…
“I would like to know the non-discriminatory reason why the marriage law should exclude homosexuals.”
Because one is extremely leery of messing with a critical societal institution that’s already on the verge of total failure.
“I’m not saying there’s NEVER a slippery slope; I’m just saying it is a rhetorical tool to scare people.”
Sometimes there isn’t a slippery slope. Sometimes there is. It’s always sensible consider the possibility.
If you want to reduce the power of the slippery slope argument, you can’t just mock it, and you can’t just point to the times it hasn’t happened. People also remember the times it has happened, and will be right to worry until you give a convincing reason it won’t happen. Point out a bump that you think will stop the slide.
For example:
What legal argument or political tactic currently being used by you or other SSM advocates does *not* apply to polygamy?
“I would like to know the non-discriminatory reason why the marriage law should exclude homosexuals.â€
Because one is extremely leery of messing with a critical societal institution that’s already on the verge of total failure.
I don’t know that it’s a failure. Marriages fail, but the institution doesn’t: I think most young and unmarried people still want to, and/or plan to, get married at some point in their lives.
But even assuming that you are right, how would the inclusion of homosexual marriage make the institution worse? Do you think heterosexual people would stop desiring marriage (or leave marriages) simply because gay people also get married?
Seriously — to all straight married people out there: If gay people get married, is that going to make your good marriage bad? Or your bad marriage worse? I don’t get the connection.
It’s kind of like the thinking that Jackie Robinson’s entry into baseball would ruin the sport. Didn’t happen.
‘“I can see plenty of upsides for promoting gay marriageâ€
I can’t. *shrug* Maybe you can enlighten me. ‘
The hope that when gay couples adopt kids and move to the suburbs, the reality of property taxes and public school teachers will come as such a shock that they start voting Republican
Seriously, I think there are some good public-policy arguments in favor of SSM, as well s some good ones against. The notion of it being a “natural right” I find a bit dodgy but arguable. It’s the notion that it’s a *constitutional* right under our current laws that leads to disaster.
If I waws a Massachusetts legislator I’d probably have voted to keep the SSM rule the SJC imposed, then turned right around and moved to impeach the lot of them, for trying to steal my job!
The big difference between Loving and Goodridge is that Loving is based on the assumption that the 14th amendment to the US constitution means what it says. Goodridge is based on the assumption that the Massachusetts constitution meant something different in 2003 than it did in 2002.
What legal argument or political tactic currently being used by you or other SSM advocates does *not* apply to polygamy?
I’m not sure this deals with tactics or arguments, but one difference between SSM and polygamy is that most people don’t want polygamous relationships. SSM opponents talk about pologamy as if there are millions of would-be polygamists out there. There simply aren’t. There ARE however, millions of gay and lesbian people who seek loving consensual unions.
Test yourself: Do you know/have you met a polygamist in your entire life?
Okay, now how about a gay person?
Show of hands, ladies — how many of you would want your husband to have another wife?
Guys? How about your wife having a second husband?
No, I didn’t think so.
Numbers aside, the argumentative distinction between SSM and polygamy is that, unlike healthy heterosexual and homosexual unions, the history of polygamy is fraught with fraud, subjugation of women (and occasionally, children). In other words, polygamous unions are often NOT consensual. It is on that basis that I can, and would, oppose polygamous unions for the societal harm they would cause.
But, like I said, the polygamy issue is largely a red herring. As is the man-cat marriage.
“But even assuming that you are right, how would the inclusion of homosexual marriage make the institution worse? ”
I don’t know. Sometimes changes have totally unexpected consequences. I don’t agree with the above argument myself, I’m just pointing out that, with no bigotry or malice, a rational person could oppose SSM on the basis of the “precautionary principle.” If you want to change something important, it’s up to you to prove that the change you propose is safe.
“But even assuming that you are right, how would the inclusion of homosexual marriage make the institution worse? â€
I think you are changing your opponents meaning. Make it worse? It would make it different. It would no longer BE the institution of marriage, it would be something else. You are trying to change the very definition, the very meaning of what the institution of marriage IS. You will be taking away what IS and putting something else in it’s place.
So your turn. What’s wrong with a civil union?
I completely agree; one chooses to act out on their homosexuality.
My take on same sex marriage is this: I don’t care if individual churches choose to marry same sex couples, in fact, I encourage it. However, the question is whether the state should sanction those relationships by giving them the same status as a a sanctioned relationship…and I don’t think so.
There’s been a long history of homosexuals and accepted homosexual relationships, but I can’t think of any society that sanctioned those relationships on the same level as a heterosexual relationship. I do believe that there should be a remedy for gay relationships, such as civil unions.
“one difference between SSM and polygamy is that most people don’t want polygamous relationships”
Most don’t want a homosexual relationship either.
Also, have you ever heard of Islam?
“In other words, polygamous unions are often NOT consensual. It is on that basis that I can, and would, oppose polygamous unions for the societal harm they would cause.”
The question was not about what you would personally oppose. It was about whether the *political tactics* – lawsuits demanding equal access to marriage – and the legal arguments currently being used would create a precedent that would make it easier for Muslims to demand *and get* a judge to rule that they have to be allowed polygamy.
Matters of your personal taste aside, what aspects of Goodridge’s arguments wouldn’t be usable by a pro-polygamy activist?
Might your having won that particular battle have long term consequences far worse than whatever you gained?
Comment # 125 is so full of pure speculation as to make it worthless. Back up the numbers you sight. And why would we compare only ‘healthy’ (by what definition) heterosexual (and homosexual) unions with polygamous unions that are not? Are you saying that is the only type (unhealthy, whatever that is) of polygamous union? Or that healthy (whatever THAT is) homosexuals unions are the only type?
Heck then, lets compare healthy heterosexual unions with abusive homosexuals unions!
err…’scuse that numbers you *sight* bit…
As a matter of fact it does. However, in case someone hasn’t mentioned it already, the SC of VA of that time–and all others who have used the Bible to justify racism–was reading the Bible rather selectively since it managed to ignore the stories of Ruth (a non-Israelite ancestor of King David) and of Moses (whose sister was made leprous by God because she criticized the fact that Moses was married to a Midianite). Some believe that Zipporah, the Midianite, was black; what she most definitely was not was one of the children of Israel.
The same cannot be said of homosexuality.
That was for #32
Getting cute? Oh, I see, you have never encountered Chaldeans, and that is why you feel that my example is absurd. Look them up, Kman, if you must. But remove the mote from your own eye first, because rather than answer me with logic, you chose to claim that I have some sort of affinity to the same sort of people had Rosa Parks sitting on the back of the bus. Maybe my first mistake was taking you seriously.
Tell me, if we allow gay people to marry, why should we discriminate against the marriage practices of Chaldeans? They are an ancient culture (they’re mentioned in the Bible and still speak Aramaic for pity’s sake). Why should we have the right to deny them marriage to their cousins, as they frequently engage in such marriages?
With regards to another marriage practice, why should we tell Chaldenas and Albanians (I see them, too) that their daughters should be old enough to be out of high school before marriage? By what right?
You see, I may have mentioned before that my job is “failed marriages.†I see Chaldeans among this lot all the time, and very frequently, they went to Jordan and married their cousins. In one instance with some Sicilian cousins who married each other, a priest remarked that the case was a reason why they (the Catholic church) should not permit cousins to marry. So my mentioning Chaldeans wasn’t about being cute. I simply see that example every week. Gosh, I hope you’re not a bigot or something. I mean, what reason could you have for your response?
By the way, I notice you once again concede the point by ignoring it: the point is, gay people are equal before the law. You haven’t refuted that claim, only made snide remarks. Too bad. I really was hoping to find out there was a benign reason for the insistence on gay marriage. So far, neither you nor John D nor anyone else has explained why gay people need to be married in situations where straight people don’t have that option, or manage just fine without marriage. I await that answer, for it interests me greatly.
You say there’s nothing you can do about being black — I beg to differ. Look at Michael Jackson — he turned into a white man (he’s certainly whiter than I am.) It took him years of effort, surgery, lots of pain and lots of mental anguish to become white, and he’s probably still very unstable.
There is a pretty clear analogy to his case: I, as a gay man, can force myself to act straight. It’ll be lots of pain, hiding, mental anguish (though at least, thankfully, no surgery). I’ll probably be unstable because of it for the rest of my life.
Just because you can’t see an inherent human trait, it doesn’t mean it’s not there. I believe that “homosexual behavior is a choice” is a fallacious argument. What are you suggesting we do? Stay celibate all of our life? Engage in heterosexual behavior, which is contrary to our desires? Why not just mandate castration for gay men? You might just as well, if you are going to otherwise propose legislation to prevent homosexual behavior. I can just hear Bob Barker: “And please neuter and spay your pets, and gay sons and daughters.”
One *is* compelled to act on those desires, because they are the only natural ones. Those desires are also the only ones that form a basis of a stable relationship (you know very well that many marriages fall apart because the partners can’t connect physically). Gay men and women aren’t asking for the religious marriage – they are asking for a civil definition of it, for a social approval of their families. It makes the most sense for society, and it’s healthy. By encouraging gay men and women to enter a stable, socially-approved relationship, you are reducing chances of promiscuity, psychological problems, and disease.
Why should marriages be limited to two people? Because there’s scientific evidence that couples (not triples or quadruples) form the most stable societal units. And please don’t say that only applies only to straight couples; research clearly shows that lesbian couples are the most stable ones.
Why doesn’t that open the road to pedophilia? Because only two adults can make an informed consent. No children, no animals. Only two adult humans.
And that’s that.
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
http://www.carm.org/questions/homosexuality.htm
Need I say more?
I don’t think same-sex “marriage” will be the cause of other problems (e.g., marriage to animals) so much as it is the last symptom of a societal and legal attitude gone mad. It probably began with the constitutional “privacy” decisions that led to Roe v. Wade and led us down the slope that anything sexual is beyond the reach of government.
Darn it LaShawn — you took all the diversity out of my week — I was going to spend the rest of the day being a white, straight female, then tomorrow I was going to be black, and on Wednesday I was going to be a lesbian, then I Thursday I was going to try to be a man for at least few hours. On Friday I wanted to be a Korean and 80 years old, and on Saturday I would try my hand at being a 6 year old boy from Brazil.
Now of all of those people I planned to be over this week I can actually accomplish only one. A sex change operation would take more than a day. I am years from both 80 and 6. I can’t become Korean or Brazilian even if I try real hard. I could spend all day at a tanning salon but that would only cook my skin red or brown, but it certainly would not make me black.
I can however, run up to any number of bars near Du Pont Circle and find me a girlfriend for the night … if I CHOOSE to do so. We choose our sex partners, we may have an interest or a preference, but short of rape — we choose. It is a behavior.
Okay — forget all the nonsense about the cat — althought there are some men with goats and sheep who will be unhappy.
When did a sexual relationship become the basis for marriage? Certainly Iran mullahs are looking at allowing 1 hour marriages so men can have sex and then divorce their wife(?) immediately after.
Is marriage just about the sex act? GOD help us.
It all comes down to money. Prior to the changes in the marriage penalty tax laws, we didn’t hear much from gays because marriages were penalized from a tax standpoint. However, since that changed and there are actually tax benefits (or at least equalization) to being married, the gays cry for getting married and equality. Ya know, it’s always follow the money. Every dang time.
From a moral standpoint, I will never condone it. But, this country and world is getting so immoral, it’s like a losing battle.
I’m gonna use this last commenter (135) because he seems to raise all of the issues that are pertinent to this discussion.
To start I must say that it is not through a genuine thought out love for another person that anyone can encourage homosexuality. Despite all the PC rhetoric and ignorance of facts, homnsexuality is detrimental to a person mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual health. I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to thoroughly read this http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html and then try and dispute it.
Just because you can’t see an inherent human trait, it doesn’t mean it’s not there. I believe that “homosexual behavior is a choice†is a fallacious argument.
To argue this from a Christian perspective it is not. No one can reasonably deny that God, uder no uncertain terms considers sodomy and abomination. It goes against the very first command he gave to
His creation to “be fruitful and multiply” (please don’t make absurd arguments about those who are sterile, just think about it). This also falls in the same vein with abortion and contraception though that is another subject altogether. Sex outside of it’s procreative, unitive, and metaphysical purposes is also condemned by God.
Now God does not condemn love for our fellow man and in that light a man loving another man or a woman loving another woman is perfectly acceptable. We are commanded to love. The question really is whether or not it is actually love or lust. From where does your feelings for this person truly flow? Is homosexuality thus not defined by a sexual attraction to a member of the same sex? It is in this that a person has a choice. Choose to follow God’s will or disobey Him.
To argue your position with science is simply to realize that evolution rules you out. Homosexuality is not beneficial to the survival of the species and as shown in the above link is actually disastrous to a persons well being. In light of such information to continue upon such a path is to do so out of sheer will. The problem is understanding why one chooses this life and many studies have linked it to a variety of issues. The largest of these issues concerns the relationship of parent to child. Was the father distant? Was the mother too close? Was there abuse and neglect from a gender that left a person emotionally scarred to them? Our permissive culture is also fostering an increase in homosexual/bisexual behavior. If it feels good do it. Don’t be so closed minded. Experiment, it’s only sex after all. Drugs and alcohol have their roles to serve. Some people are born with the biological propensity to fall into the gay life. This is mostly observed in the emotionally sensitive people, particularly those seeking just to be desired. If they are rejected by the one sex then that need for acceptance can manifest itself into desires for the same sex.
What are you suggesting we do? Stay celibate all of our life?
No. But it is possible. I often find this insulting but when I think about it Christians have helped foster this mentality. First is the falatious Hollywood idea that there is somebody out there for everybody. In fact, there isn’t. God calls some people to celebacy and guess what? They survived! Read about the life of the apostle Paul, you would be quite surprised what he has to say about.
Now what I find insulting is that sexual chastity is required of all of us, not just homosexuals. Promiscuity in any form is condemned by God. No sex before marriage. No sex outside your marriage. Periods of abstinence in a marriage when it’s purposes stray form God. Christians who condemn homosexual sex should also just as strongly condemn the sexual immoralities of their own. This issue isn’t one of sexual preference, it’s one of sexual responsibility. Anyone who sleeps around is just as guilty of sexual sin as anyone who engages in homosexual sex.
Engage in heterosexual behavior, which is contrary to our desires?
Not all desires are beneficial. The reason why the dichotomoy of homosexuality and pedophilia comes up so prevalently is resultant of this argument. NAMBLA makes the same argument that you do. They feel it is natural and should be lawful and publicly acceptable. It’s part of an entitlement mentality that just because we desire something we should receive it and it should be accepted. Consent can’t be an argument because what if a child consents to it? Should it be ok then? If you can be born homosexual why can’t some not be born with desire for children or in the childs case desire for adult? The problem is not the desire but our societies increasing lack of fostering proper managment and responsibility regarding these desires.
One *is* compelled to act on those desires, because they are the only natural ones.
If such is the case then so is the murderer, rapist, arsonist, thief, social deviant, etc. justified by their actions because they feel compelled to act on them.
Gay men and women aren’t asking for the religious marriage – they are asking for a civil definition of it, for a social approval of their families.
Oh? And what happens when a church refuses to offer the ceremony for a gay couple. The Catholic church was forced to close the doors on it’s adoption centers in Chicago when they weren’t granted religious exemption. You see, people like you get angry when the church influences the state but have no problems when the state forces itself on the Church. Should homosexual marriage be granted the church would indeed be affected especially if coupled with direction our legislation is going regarding “hate speech”.
they are asking for a civil definition of it, for a social approval of their families. It makes the most sense for society, and it’s healthy. By encouraging gay men and women to enter a stable, socially-approved relationship, you are reducing chances of promiscuity, psychological problems, and disease.
The health issues have already been debunked. Providing acceptance of a lifestyle will not change it’s damaging effect. Ask the Dutch. They have the same problems we do here and it’s widely accepted by them.
research clearly shows that lesbian couples are the most stable ones.
lol Proof please? Married devout Chrsitian couples are clearly more stable. They built America!
I skipped after #67. Will go back. One of those facts that EVERYONE knows is that 50% of marriages end in divorce. That turns out not to be the case (or, a lie). The small print part of this is that divorce has been declining since 1981. The large print edition states that nearly 75% of adults have never been divorced. Guess there must be a lot of multiple divorces. Truth is that stats were deliberately cooked for whatever reasons that needs a series of lies to make their point.
Stacey;
You go, girl…doin’ good and scoring big.
And, Tyrian;
You “Rock!”
And John D., just a question — if life was all about “equal,” why are the top 5% of earners in the US paying almost 37% of the taxes while earning only 17% of the income? Oh my – that’s not fair fo’ sho’!
I was pleasantly surprised when I opened your blog today and read this thread about homosexuality and where the real sin lies. It is almost exactly the same conversation I had with my daughter’s a few days ago over the issue of homosexuality and sin.
The conversation was prompted by the announcement by a Christian friend’s son that he is gay. I began to think about how I would handle the issue should one of my children make a similar announcement. This young man’s family threw him out of the house and his father will no longer speak to him. Could I do this to one of my own beloved children? I began to think about the sin of homosexuality and its relationship to other sins. I decided I would treat homosexuality like any other sin…it is not so much the inclination…we are all inclined to sin and tempted to do so in a variety of areas…but it is the acting out on the inclination that is the sin. Also, as you said, sex outside of marriage is sinful…why should homosexual sex be any different. So my conclusion was that so long as the gay man or woman abstained from homosexual physical relations, then the inclination toward homosexuality could be looked upon as any other inclination toward sin.
So far, neither you nor John D nor anyone else has explained why gay people need to be married in situations where straight people don’t have that option, or manage just fine without marriage. I await that answer, for it interests me greatly.
You have a blind spot that makes you unable to see that the premise of your question is, quite simply, wrong.
Gay people don’t “need” to be married any more than black people “needed” to on the front of the bus. But gay people do not have the OPTION to marry and receive the benefits of marriage, unlike straight people.
For you to say that “straight people don’t have that option” is just a lie.
It’s gays not having the option that is — on its face! — discriminatory. You can call that a “snide remark” but that’s not a rebuttal.
Why is it a lie? Because you say so? I provided examples to back up my point. All you have “going†for you is name calling. That’s it. If your cause is just, you should be able to counter my examples. Have you learned about the Chaldeans yet? All marriage types aren’t open to them. Any answer for that? If the priest had his way, all marriage types aren’t open to Sicilians, either. Does that bother you? What’s the basis for denying them their ancient marriage customs if they’re in America? Got one? Or did you just dismiss the question out of bigotry? What, you don’t like being called a bigot? Tant pis. You have no legs for complaint.
Any answer for the situation with the nuns? They can’t marry by matter of morality and law. What do they do? Why is marriage their only solution according to you? Tell me honestly: why do gay people need marriage when the nuns absolutely won’t be granted marriage rights, yet manage without it?
I’ve given up expecting an answer from you, to be honest. If you had one, you would have said it by now. You resort to juvenile behavior as if that’s enough. Some people argue by giving facts or reason. In fact, that’s what arguments are. I’m going to resort to sympathy, because you’ve apparently never learned what an argument is, and that must explain why you resort to juvenile behavior. Too bad for you that I tune that out. Good night.
Kman,
you keep talking about discrimination on the issue of ssm. You keep using the point that hetrosexuals can marry who they choose but homosexuals can not. you are wrong in this regard..now please follow closely here. As a hetrosexual I can marry any person of the opposite sex that I am LEGALLY able to marry. I can not marry a member of my own family nor can I marry someone who is already married, there are other limits on who I may legally marry depending on the state or country I live in.
Now a homosexual can marry any person of the opposite sex they choose with the same qualifiers.
Equal protection under the law only says that you have the same legal rights as any other citizen regardless of race, color, creed, nation of origin or sexual orientation.
In order for the laws against same sex marriage to be discriminatory there would have to be different laws specifically barring homosexuals from entering into legal marriages. there are none so it is not discriminatory. Regardless of your personal views on ssm’s from a legal standpoint there is no arguement conerning equal protection nor discrimination.
Here’s a comment from an article about the repression of free speech in the debate over homosexuality. It is worth a read.
“Which side here is refusing to ‘live and let live’? Homosexual groups deny they are pressing for special rights and protection, but no one is shutting down their speech, branding them as hateful, bullying them with threats of firings, and publicly insulting the sacred principles in which they believe. Homosexual groups maintain they are promoting diversity, but seek to suppress diverse viewpoints by labeling them ‘hateful and ‘hurtful.’”
http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2007/06/12/another_lesson_in_selective_tolerance
Yes indeed. Just look at this thread and see which side has, as always, engaged in name-calling and so forth.
We’ve been told our arguments are too ’silly’ to be worth rebutting. There have been insinuations of racism, nazi-ism, etc. . All for stating a preference to maintain the definition of marriage…
Not the most mature of behavior, but there you have it. And it really does have a purpose, which is an attempt to repress such opinions.
Of course to see how tolerant homosexuals for other lifestyle choises, ask eHarmony and the lawsuit they are facing under California discrimination laws for homosexuals.
It seems that the people that are talking the loudest for tolerance, tend to be in practice the most intolerant of all.
Coming in a bit late on this one…
I agree there is a slippery slope here on allowing homosexual marriage. But, if anything that sloped was greased with the hypocrisy of so many christian heterosexuals refusing to honor the sanctity of marriage.
I’ve always thought that the previous denial of interracial marriage in this country is the root of the homosexual agenda’s ever expanding desire to get that lifestyle considered the same is a heterosexual one. That supreme court decision is their strength. We should have never denied 2 consenting adults One male, One female the right to get married, NEVER.
I’ve got a story: A muslim ex-friend of mine would always down american values and what not. One day, he said to me and a couple friends that he believed in polygamy. He said, “at least I want to marry all the women I want to be with. You christian american men talk values but always want to have your mistress on the side.” And one of my friends sitting there had a girl on the side and was married. Sad Sad…
Anyone heard the song “cheaper to keep her”?
Allowing two people of the same race get married? You can take affirmative action, illegal immigration, slavery, jim crow, and everything else wrong with this country and they all pale in comparison to the wrong of that kind of union. That and nothing else, is the sign of this country’s imminent downfall.
Comments on this entry are closed.