Gay Marriage

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:44 pm

If a you had to vote today, on the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same sex marrages. I am not talking about, any of the smoke screen side issue like marring of animals, multiple husbands or wives, marrying hermafidites Bla bla bla. Would you vote to change our constitution to specifically out law, on a fedral level, marrage between same sex couples.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:01 pm

Oh, you just had to go for the queen mother of emotional issues, didn't you?

I have yet to hear one solid logical argument against gay marriage so far, and by that I mean any argument that wasn't based on the Bible (as religious/moral arguments don't count in a secular government legal system**) or anti-gay (it's just dang ol' disgustin', them guys on guys and girls on girls. It ain't right!).

The closest legitimate argument that I have heard is the one regarding children and the suggestion that the marriage is designed as a mechanism for people to come together to procreate, and as two of the same sex can't procreate within the marriage, they don't need to be married. That one almost works (if you buy into the theory that only people with children "deserve" the rights and responsiblilities of marriage). However, if those people meant what they said, they would also be railing for the illegality of marriages between sterile couples, couples too old to have kids, and people who choose not to have kids.

Eventually, gay people will be able to get married and nobody will care, just like interracial couples are perfectly normal now, whereas the idea was the end of the world in the 1950's. It's just going to take everybody a little while to adjust their outlook on things and overcome this initial wave of hysteria. The courts have taken a lead on this issue, and people who otherwise might not care about the issue feel threatened that their stake in the democratic process is being usurped. As a result, we are in the backlash phase of the movement. Again, there are some strong similarities to the Civil Rights Movement in that regard. One of the great ironies now is that many of the black church leaders are the most vocal opponents to gay marriage, and bristle at the notion that anyone is making these comparisons. I don't know what that says about them or the cause itself, but it is definitely interesting.

** Addendum: By this I mean that laws (and especially constituional amendments) should not be affected based on exclusively moral or Biblical teachings. Yes, perjury, murder, and a bunch of other obvious crimes are included in Biblical and moral teachings, but for our legal system, we should only base our laws on whether things actually do harm to something, not things that are harmless but are declared "bad" only because a particular religion or a particular persons moral code deemed it to be bad.

hokeyfine · Post by **hokeyfine** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:08 pm

the danger lies in constitutional ban on any sort of morality. if gay marriage is banned, what will be next? brown hair? ludicrous? i don't think so. it's scary when we legislate morality. yes pedophilia should be outlawed, eventhough it was normal lifestyle way back when.

hokeyfine · Post by **hokeyfine** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:10 pm

remember, we tried this with prohibition. people originally thought it might be a good idea, then they realized (thank god!) it was a mistake.

thecitygriz · Post by **thecitygriz** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:35 pm

Last spring I saw interviews with college kids on spring break in Ft.Lauderdale. At least half were Bush fans, but Kerry had his proponents too. But on the issue of gay marriage? Not ONE person was against gay marriage; they just didn't think it was a big deal. Even the most rabid Bush guy said he thought the Republicans were wrong on this issue.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:46 pm

Okay, we're all agreeing... that's not getting us anywhere. One person so far has voted in favor of the constitutional discrimination-ment. Come out of the closet (so to speak) and let us hear the rationale for your opinion. We need a little diversity right now.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 3:11 pm

WOW!

I am more liberal than conservitive, but I was reall expecting this sports oriented to be 2/3 for the constitution amendment (against gay marrage) with 1/3 against the amendment (for allowing gay marrage). It is still early.

I do find it funny that the typical republican line is states have the right to self determination. Or to keep the federal government from engaging in "social engineering" . That, of course is unless it is "social engineering" that they like.

This is what I call an e-be-ge-be issue. I don't mind, that much, when people vote accordingly to there own e-be-ge-be, I mean really who among us haven't made a decition based on our own e-be-ge-be feelings. I just don't like when people hide behind false smoke screens of reasons why this is a good thing. I will listen to constitutional expert and some biblical scholars and as long as they are argueing the truth I will respect there arguement, but in reality 80% or more are making thier vote based on the e-be-ge-be factor. Just be honest. It really has nothing to do marring of animals, or multiple wives, just admit it the simple thought of two guys french kissing gives you the e-be-ge-be's. I can understand that! I will respect .... your honest opinion.

soccertodd · Post by **soccertodd** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:02 am

Ok, I seem to be in the minority in that I am actually against gay marriage. I am totally fine with gay people living together and enjoying all of the same rights, I just don't agree with it being called a marriage. "Civil union" is perfectly fine with me. I realize this might seem a little silly but I do think that many people out there feel that gays being allowed to have a "marriage" would make their heterosexual marriage less sacred and legit. I know we need to have a seperation of church and state but at the same time I think gay's "right" to marriage could actually infringe on heterosexual couples' "right" to have this religious observance. I guess I don't really know the answer to this and I can only go with my gut feeling. I will say, however, that I really don't care that much one way or the other. I can outline why I think what I think but I am truthfully not that passionate about this issue. I could care less.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:26 am

soccertodd: I feel pretty much the same way you do, but I would go one step further and say that government shouldn't grant anyone a "marriage" if that term is, in fact, supposed to be sacred. It should only be issued by a church or someplace that is in the sacred business. The government should only be ratifying and enforcing contracts between people. So I would suggest that the government should just give civil unions, with the same rights and responsibilties, to everyone. People could then have whatever kind of religious or spiritual ceremony they wanted to add the sacred element to the process.

That would eliminate the whole semantics issue that seems to complicate things for a lot of people.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:26 am

It's none of my business if you marry your frog.

Cat-theotherwhitemeat · Post by **Cat-theotherwhitemeat** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:59 am

velochat wrote:It's none of my business if you marry your frog.

Only if his name is Kermit.

soccertodd · Post by **soccertodd** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:02 pm

BayAreaCat: I can definitely agree with that reasoning. Sounds like a solution to me.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:21 pm

Forewarning: this is a long post--I guess I got carried away with my typing.

I guess I'll own up to being the most conservative of all who have posted to this point.

I do support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. I also think that outside the moral values as set forth by the Bible, the amendment cannot be defended using only secular arguments, but I'll give it a go.

Same-sex marriage has done Scandinavia--where the practice has been legal for years--no favors; same-sex marriage destroys traditional marriages because the two cannot exist at the same time, and cohabitation and short-term relationships are the inevitable result. Ask the Norwegians, the Swedes, and the Dutch. That is exactly what is happening there.

Additionally, the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one man/one woman unions. In Utah polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. In January 2004, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas. The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society" — as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture.

With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, and much more) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed. If you doubt that this is the motive, read what is in the literature today. Activists have created a new word to replace the outmoded terms infidelity, adultery, cheating and promiscuity. The new concept is polyamorous. It means the same thing (literally "many loves") but with the agreement of the primary sexual partner. Why not? He or she is probably polyamorous, too.

The larger issue is the moral status of our society as a whole. We have taken God out of every facet of our lives possible in the name of seperation of church and state. The Founding Fathers intent was to protect the church from the state, not protect the state from the church. Now, because of the lack of God in our society, we feel we can make our own rules and change them at our convenience.

I've opened up myself for a lot of spears to be chucked, but the Moderator did ask for diversity in the posts!

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:59 pm

Honolulu: Thanks for the post -- we do need the other voices, and you posted a very good counterpoint.

I'm short of time, so I'll be quick.

Scandanavia: http://slate.com/id/2100884

How would a marriage between gays open it up to multiple marriages anymore than a legal contract between straight people? I think this is a straw man argument. If it was defined as a contract between two people, then it would be a contract between two people, with the rights and responsibililies clearly defined. It doesn't matter what sex they are.

The polygamy argument is an interesting one, and one I have thought about a lot. Really, it should be legal -- who are we to say that people can't have more than one wife/husband? The reason the current laws/morals came to be was as a means of distributing property (women) more equally among the men in the dawn of the worlds cultures, causing less likelihood of revolution by the less desirable males (read "The Moral Animal" for a really interesting history of it). I don't know why anyone would want to get into polygamy, but it really shouldn't be up to us to prevent. Of course, the wackos who do it now (read "Under the Banner of Heaven) are doing so in an involuntary way, which is forcing minors to marry guys, which is illegal on its own right and should be punished with extreme prejudice. I don't to promote polygamy, but unless it is harming someone else (as in the case when children are forced into it), then it probably should be legal.

Thomas Jefferson was quite clear in his writings -- he didn't want church to influence government. Thank secularism in all its holiness for preventing us from turning into a Christian version of Iran. It would be just as ugly, as history has proven to us (see the Inquisition). The Founding Fathers, most of whom were Deists (it was the Age of Enlightenment, which was an ebb in the ebb and flow cycle of religious fervor in our country's history), and were very distrustful of state sanctioned religions (and organized religion in general), and they made sure this didn't happen to their baby. In fact, the first Senate passed a proclamation assertively stating that the United States was NOT a Christian nation (as there were some who were suggesting that it was).

Fortunately, because our government isn't tied to religion, we can make laws that make sense and treat people with the fairness that our modern times require. Otherwise, we would be stoning rape victims, legally keeping slaves, banishing women during menstration, and hundreds of other silly laws that God instructed in the Bible. I don't know... I think maybe he was wrong on a few of them, so maybe it's good that we do let modern living people make our laws as opposed to dead writers of ancient Middle Eastern texts.

This probably made no sense -- I am writing way too fast....

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 6:06 pm

Just to completely come clean on the religious thing (as this will keep me from having to ever type anything about it again), I have a long, long discussion of the subject on my blog on August 9th, 2004:

http://www.thebergum.com/pages/4/index.htm

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:28 pm

Some interesting points, BAC--but ones that I don't necessarily agree with, but I'm sure you've figured that out by now...

The Slate article is of the type that I was speaking in the third paragraph of my post, when I mentioned that the amendment can't be defended using secular only arguments. It simply can't be done. The only way to go about defending the Marriage Amendment proposal is to do so on a faith-based foundation.

Your paragraph about polygamy is exactly what I had feared. When you decide to cross that line of what marriage is and isn't, just where are we as society to draw the new line? Once the boundary is set to please one group, another will cry for "equal rights" to marry...pets, relatives, or anything else that is judged to be "suitable" to marry. You may scoff, but using your arguement, where does the "societal more" get set?

Again, the Founding Fathers didn't want a theocracy--that's what Iran is, for the record--but they did recognize the blessed nature of our new country. Christians came here to escape the persecution of the state-run religions of England (the King of England was the Patriarch of the Anglican Church). The framers of our great country, I re-emphasize, wanted to protect the church from the state (thus avoiding the situation from which original Colonists escaped). They did, however, recognize--and know the importance of--a nation founded in the grace of God.

The Senate, in the First Congress (1789) made only proclamations on treaties with Native American tribes (for instance the Choctaws) Regardless, though, of when the proclamation was made, the Senators were not proclaming us to be an atheist or agnostic nation. They were proclaming that we were a democratic republic, not a tyrannical theocracy. There is a huge difference between a "Christian nation" (theocracy) and a "nation of Christians." My stance is we began as a nation of Christians. We've slid down the slippery slope of societal mores, and are not what we once were.

Fortunately, because our government isn't tied to religion, we can make laws that make sense and treat people with the fairness that our modern times require. Otherwise, we would be stoning rape victims, legally keeping slaves, banishing women during menstration, and hundreds of other silly laws that God instructed in the Bible. I don't know... I think maybe he was wrong on a few of them, so maybe it's good that we do let modern living people make our laws as opposed to dead writers of ancient Middle Eastern texts.

First of all, they basis of many of our "modern" laws is biblical. Sorry to disappoint--I'm sure this will cause many to become anarchists.

I'm not sure where you get the "stoning...victims" statement from, but the facts you present are only part of the story. I could go into them more in depth (if I went waaay Off Topic), but in the interest of time/space/readability, I will say this: it is true the Old Testament talks about slave ownership. Typically this was done to pay off debts (think "indentured servant") but the Old Testament also mandated that these "slaves" were to be set free every seven years (known as the "Year of Jubilee) and their debts forgiven. The menstrating women "banishment" is overstatement. They were not banned--in the interest of hygiene in a place and time that did not enjoy the products you can find the Safeway on Main Street in Bozeman, a lot of physical contact was frowned upon.

Many of the "laws" or "practices" you mention are often used to paint Christianity--and Christians--in a bad light. The New Testament talks about the proper way to treat our neighbors--"love your neighbor as yourself". Think how our world would be if we all did that--and stopped trying to tear each other down to lower levels?

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:30 pm

Just to completely come clean on the religious thing (as this will keep me from having to ever type anything about it again), I have a long, long discussion of the subject on my blog on August 9th, 2004:

http://www.thebergum.com/pages/4/index.htm

I've read your "Manifesto." If you ever want to have a discussion about it, please let me know. There are several things that are misrepresented because the entire picture isn't being shown.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:57 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:The New Testament talks about the proper way to treat our neighbors--"love your neighbor as yourself". Think how our world would be if we all did that--and stopped trying to tear each other down to lower levels?

On this point, I could not agree more. If that was what everyone practiced (including all Christians), there wouldn't be much to worry about in the world.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:07 pm

So we agree:

-- That we disagree on religion;
-- That people really ought to treat each other better

I can live with that.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:08 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:The Senate, in the First Congress (1789) made only proclamations on treaties with Native American tribes (for instance the Choctaws) Regardless, though, of when the proclamation was made, the Senators were not proclaming us to be an atheist or agnostic nation. They were proclaming that we were a democratic republic, not a tyrannical theocracy. There is a huge difference between a "Christian nation" (theocracy) and a "nation of Christians." My stance is we began as a nation of Christians. We've slid down the slippery slope of societal mores, and are not what we once were.

That's an interesting distinction regarding the proclamation, and I have to agree with how you describe it -- that makes sense. It doesn't preclude separation of church and state in my mind, though, and seems to still reinforce the idea.

First of all, they basis of many of our "modern" laws is biblical. Sorry to disappoint--I'm sure this will cause many to become anarchists.

True, the obvious ones (murder, stealing) do make both the Big 10 and the modern laws.

Gay Marriage

I would Vote :

Gay Marriage

Can I stir the pot some more?