[quote]Makavali wrote:
No need to get your panties in a twist, I was just asking.[/quote]
No, it was a serious question as to where you picked up the idea.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, it was a serious question as to where you picked up the idea.[/quote]
I honestly can’t remember now. I’ll try dig up where I read it, but from an initial look you’re right. Sexual orientation isn’t protected - by Federal law.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
If the right exists to have all consenting adults relationships deserving of something other than a lesser status, you can’t exclude them, even if it is convenient to your cause.[/quote]
If it is impossible to grant rights to Group C and nothing can be done to change that, you can’t be blamed for not doing so.
Refusing to grant those rights to Group B on the basis that it wouldn’t be fair to Group C is a sham argument. Group C would get the same rights if there was any possibility of it.
It’s like finding two people trapped in a collapsed coal mine, and only being able to extract one of them. Refusing to extract one on the basis that it would be unfair to the other person is both unjust and inhumane.
We’re not talking about convenience. You’ve argued that it is administratively impossible to grant marriage rights to polygamists. If so, you can’t be blamed for not doing so even if you grant the same rights to gay couples.
Polygamy has been around for millenia as well (see the old testament, for example). What is your point? Just because it isn’t common in our country doesn’t mean it hasn’t been common in many other countries and cultures. You’re presenting polygamy as some new social experiment, which is historically and factually incorrect.
All of these benefits apply to gay marriage as well. You do know that gay couples can and do raise children, right? I have two children myself. Are my children better off if I have a loose relationship with my partner, or if we have a long term stable relationship secured by the moral and legal commitments of a civil marriage?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Straight marriage has been around since before the birth of our country as one of our seminal institutions.[/quote]
So has gay marriage.
[i]There is evidence that same sex unions have occurred since the beginning of recorded history in Egypt, China, Greece, Rome and Japan. Famous lovers include the Egyptian couple Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum and the Greek couple Harmodius and Aristogiton.
The first recorded use of the word “marriage” for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. The rise of Christianity changed attitudes to same-sex unions and led to the persecution of gays.
In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal. In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be publicly burned alive.[/i]
[quote]forlife wrote:
If it is impossible to grant rights to Group C and nothing can be done to change that, you can’t be blamed for not doing so.
Refusing to grant those rights to Group B on the basis that it wouldn’t be fair to Group C is a sham argument. Group C would get the same rights if there was any possibility of it.[/quote]
You continue to misunderstand, largely because you fail to understand the nature of “rights”. “Rights” don’t get left on the cutting room floor out of convenience - if “rights” exist, then whoever has those “rights” must be equalized with those in the same category. That is the nature of “rights” - they aren’t “privileges”.
As such, the existence of any legal privilege in marriage that excludes someone who deserves the equality is a denial of those rights and, under a theory of “rights”, such laws should be void.
Fast forward to your idea - if we have two forms of binary marriage (gay and straight) but we offer no legal privilege to all other consenting adults relationships, you can’t sweep their “right” under the rug, which is exactly what you are willing to do.
Here is the problem - under that, you have become exactly what you claim to be a victim of.
And, of course, you say “well, there is no solution - we can’t create marriage for them due to administrative problems”, but that is incorrect - a denial of rights must be corrected if they, in fact, have rights, and the solution is to get rid of the legal privilege that discriminates altogether.
A case study? Race. If the law can’t put members of different races on equal footing, the law is struck down.
Again, we are talking about rights - if you allow gay and straight marriage to exist, you are denying someone their rights to have their rights validated. And if the law can’t put them all on equal footing, you got it - you have to get rid of the law.
A flawed analogy - this ain’t exactly a life or death scenario to begin with. To your principle you are trying to outline - you are assuming a duty to do something in the first place. There is no such duty in our problem.
Nope - see above. We could work something out for polygamists if we tried. What we can’t do is have a functional administrative arrangement that protects everyone’s rights - and that is where the problem exists.
I have little interest in what other countries and cultures do for the purpose of defining my own. That isn’t an answer.
To the point - we knew of polygamy, and ultimately rejected it in our culture. And that decision is as much a part of a culture as our binary marriage. Our choice to privilege one-woman-one-man is defined not only by what it permits, but what it excludes.
We don’t like polygamy - there are a number of reasons - and as such, it isn’t one of our institutions, even if it is super-popular with “other countries”.
The primary benefit of traditional marriage w/r/t children is creating the guardrails of responsibility for those that sire the children. As in, marriage provided the social function of “gluing” men to the women they procreate in order to prevent them from going off and “spreading their seed” irresponsibly.
It civilizes men, it tames them in a sense, to order the responsible creation and raising of children. The shame of bastardy was part of that arrangement - marriage serves as a vehicle of moral opprobrium in the very difficult and tragic area of taking responsibility for children.
That unique problem - one that has plagued civilization since we could call it “civilization” - doesn’t apply to gay relationships. It actually most certainly does with polygamous ones, hence our society’s rejection of it.
Again, we differ on the most basic premise your argument rests on - that all relationships are inherently equal. I don’t believe that and never have. That doesn’t mean that if a man and three women, or a man and another man, or whatever - as long as it is consenting - decide to form a relationship, we should stand in their way.
But that doesn’t mean it is the same or equal to the one relationship that underpins how we order our families and our society, and the risks of undermining an already fragile institution of marriage in order to “validate” other relationships that simply are not the social equivalent of traditional marriage are simply not worth it.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
So has gay marriage.
[i]There is evidence that same sex unions have occurred since the beginning of recorded history in Egypt, China, Greece, Rome and Japan. Famous lovers include the Egyptian couple Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum and the Greek couple Harmodius and Aristogiton.
The first recorded use of the word “marriage” for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. The rise of Christianity changed attitudes to same-sex unions and led to the persecution of gays.
In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal. In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be publicly burned alive.[/i][/quote]
Incorrect - setting aside the anecdotes, which aren’t compelling in any historical sense, part of the existence of marriage up to this point in our society has been a rejection of alternatives. Marriage is not only defined by what it is, but by what it isn’t anymore - we’ve seen, evaluated it, rejected it. Again, our version of marriage has existed for a very long time, and it has evolved into what it is at least partially by eliminating other arrangements.
Further to that point, for those gay marriage advocates interested in “progress”, as in the “evolution of human thinking” - they curiously ignore that on the linear path of Progress, some of their pet notions have been rejected.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Further to that point, for those gay marriage advocates interested in “progress”, as in the “evolution of human thinking” - they curiously ignore that on the linear path of Progress, some of their pet notions have been rejected.[/quote]
Why were they rejected?
12,000 BCE - Near the end of the Upper Paleolithic Era, human beings have left artifacts and artwork suggesting an appreciation of homo eroticism. Examples include a few cave paintings and hundreds of phallic “batons” among which is a graphically carved double dildo from Gorge d’Enfer (in present-day France) that seems to have been crafted for two women to use together.
27 BCE - The Roman Empire begins with the reign of Augustus. The first recorded same-sex marriages occur during this period.
218 - The emperor Elagabalus begins his reign. He married a man named Zoticus, an athlete from Smyrna, in a lavish public ceremony at Rome amid the rejoicings of the public.
342 - Homosexuality had been accepted by all ancient cultures as a normal part of human sexuality. The rise of Christianity, however, led to the beginning of homophobia. The first law against homosexual marriage was promulgated by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans.
498 - In spite of the laws against gay sex, the Christian emperors continued to collect taxes on male prostitutes until the reign of Anastasius I, who finally abolishes the tax.
529 - The Christian emperor Justinian I (527-565) made homosexuals a scape goat for problems such as “famines, earthquakes, and pestilences.”
1000-1100 - An eleventh century Byzantine legal treatise makes it clear that gay unions are well-known and legal in early medieval Byzantine society.
1102 - The Council of London took measures to ensure that the English public knew that it was sinful, marking a significant shift in church attitudes towards homosexuality, which previously had been more or less indifferent, at worst amounting to mild condemnation. Many priests were homosexuals, likely one of the causes of the change in attitude, as moral reformers such as Bernard of Cluny called for change.
1811 - The Netherlands decriminalizes homosexual acts.
1813 - Bavaria decriminalizes sexual acts between men.
1830 - Brazil decriminalizes homosexual acts.
1836 - The last known execution for homosexuality in Great Britain.
1852 - Portugal decriminalizes homosexual acts.
1858 - The Ottoman Empire (Turkey, Iraq) decriminalizes sodomy; Timor-Leste legalese homosexuality.
1865 - San Marino decriminalizes sodomy.
1871 - Homosexuality is criminalized throughout Germany by Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code; Guatemala and Mexico decriminalize homosexual acts.
1880 - Japan decriminalized homosexual acts.
1886 - In England, the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, outlawing sexual relations between men (but not between women) is given Royal Assent by Queen Victoria. Argentina decriminalizes homosexuality, while Portugal re-criminalizes homosexual acts.
1889 - In Italy, homosexuality is legalistic; the Cleveland Street Scandal erupts in England.
1921 - In England an attempt to make lesbianism illegal for the first time in Britain’s history fails.
1922 - A new criminal code comes into force in the USSR officially decriminalizing homosexual acts.
1930 - New Danish penalty law decriminalizes homosexuality. It comes into effect in 1933.
1932 - The new Polish Criminal Code decriminalizes homosexuality in the whole of Poland.
1934 - Uruguay decriminalizes homosexuality.
1940 - Iceland decriminalizes homosexuality.
1942 - Switzerland decriminalizes homosexuality, with the age of consent set at 20.
1944 - Sweden decriminalizes homosexuality, with the age of consent set at 20 and Suriname legalizes homosexuality.
1945 - Upon the liberation of Nazi concentration camps by Allied forces, those interned for homosexuality are not freed, but required to serve out the full term of their sentences under Paragraph 175; Portugal decriminalizes homosexuality for the second time in its history.
1948 - The communist authorities of Poland make age 15 the age of consent for all sexual acts, homosexual or heterosexual.
1951 - Greece decriminalizes homosexuality.
1956 - Thailand decriminalizes homosexual acts.
1961 - Czechoslovakia and Hungary decriminalize sodomy, the Vatican declare that anyone who is “affected by the perverse inclination” towards homosexuality should not be allowed to take religious vows or be ordained within the Roman Catholic Church. José Sarria becomes the first openly gay candidate for public office in the United States when he runs for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
1962 - Illinois becomes first U.S. state to remove sodomy law from its criminal code.
1963 - Israel decriminalizes de-facto sodomy and sexual acts between men by judicial decision against the enforcement of the relevant section in the old British-mandate law from 1936 (which in fact was never enforced).
1968 - Paragraph 175 is eased in East Germany decriminalizing homosexual acts over the age of 18; Bulgaria decriminalizes adult homosexual relations.
1970 - Kosovo decriminalized homosexuality, the first Gay Liberation Day March is held in New York City; The first Gay Freedom Day March is held in Los Angeles; The first “Gay-in” held in San Francisco; CAMP (Campaign Against Moral Prosecution) is formed in Australia.
…
Now I could go on, but the only real constant I see here is “Christians” and their “leaders” looking for a scapegoat and blind sheep following.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We could work something out for polygamists if we tried. What we can’t do is have a functional administrative arrangement that protects everyone’s rights - and that is where the problem exists.[/quote]
Can you please explain? If it is administratively possible to grant civil marriage to polygamists, how is it not administratively possible to protect the rights of both gays and polygamists?
Let’s discuss the reasons you don’t like polygamy. If you can prove that it is inherently harmful, I would probably agree with you that polygamists shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Lacking that, why wouldn’t you allow it?
Even if that were the only valid reason for marriage (which I’m sure you’ll agree, it isn’t), the reason still applies in cases where gay couples are raising children. Don’t you agree that the children are more likely better off with parents that are bound through the moral and legal constrictions of civil marriage?
Please explain to me how allowing gays to marry “undermines an already fragile institution of marriage”? Last I checked the marriages being performed in Massachusetts and California haven’t hurt the marriages of any of my straight friends.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[text][/quote]
A couple of issues:
-
Cite your sources. This notion that in 342 “all ancient cultures thought homosexuality ok” is a preposterous notion.
-
My point about “progress” - which gay marriage advocate “progressives” always like to point out is where we are inevitably headed on a linear path - was that historical “progress” includes a rejection of gay marriage (and others). It is by their own definition of Progress that they have a hard time overcoming a rejection of gay marriage historically.
-
Even if all the above is 100% correct, you are dismissive of the fact that “Christians” changed their minds, and thus the social direction, on gay marriage - as if, that alone is enough of an argument. It isn’t. Judeo-Christian attitudes have shaped our Western civilization, and that doesn’t mean such attitudes can’t be scrutinized or criticized, but the juvenile dismissal of “Christians” because they are, well, “Christians” is meaningless and stupid.
-
I would be more careful throwing out the epithet “blind sheep” - you don’t exactly have the track record to support the insult.
Whoever is against gay marriage…I think you misunderstand what it means. It doesn’t mean that YOU have to marry them! So why would you care.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Marriage is not only defined by what it is, but by what it isn’t anymore - we’ve seen, evaluated it, rejected it. Again, our version of marriage has existed for a very long time, and it has evolved into what it is at least partially by eliminating other arrangements.
Further to that point, for those gay marriage advocates interested in “progress”, as in the “evolution of human thinking” - they curiously ignore that on the linear path of Progress, some of their pet notions have been rejected.[/quote]
When I point out that other countries/cultures (both historical and contemporary) recognize gay marriage, you dismiss them out of hand. You keep insinuating that the straight model of marriage popular in most of the U.S. (particularly among Christian fundamentalists) is the model against which all other models are inferior.
It’s not the human race that has “seen, evaluated it, rejected it”. It’s Christian fundamentalists, and even there a growing number of Christians are recognizing gay marriage as both valid and morally defensible.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
lol, actually it can.
Don’t you get ever get tired of being wrong about American law?
lol are we starting our sentences with lol now?
I thought the US government was all about not discriminating and refusing to enter a business contract based on gender, race or sexuality?
Did I miss something?[/quote]
lol wut?
[quote]Mr.Irish wrote:
Whoever is against gay marriage…I think you misunderstand what it means. It doesn’t mean that YOU have to marry them! So why would you care.[/quote]
Thanks for clearing that up.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up.[/quote]
You know, I was persuaded by your argument when this hellish thread started. After a long debate with a friend last weekend (we argued at least two hours) that I completely lost, I realized that the constitution does not protect the definition of the word marriage and that it is essentially unfair and unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry, and I mean MARRY, not just civil unionize…
My dislike for the notion was completely rooted in emotion and until there is a constitutional amendment I can’t see myself being dissuaded. And to be clear, if we amend the constitution to define a word as socially relative as ‘marriage’ we are officially morons.
Beebuddy, it’s nice to hear there are genuinely open minded people out there.
In past conversations, it has often been my experience that people throw out red herring arguments (like the “bureaucratic nightmare” argument most recently discussed) that mask the real reason for their opposition to gay marriage. Most people oppose gay marriage not for logical reasons, but because they find it “icky” to think of two men having sex, or because their religion teaches them that same sex relationships are morally wrong.
Seeing people like you change their opinion based on solid reasoning gives me hope that discussions like this thread may actually be worth having.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lol wut?[/quote]
pwned. Curse you Zap!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
- Cite your sources. This notion that in 342 “all ancient cultures thought homosexuality ok” is a preposterous notion.[/quote]
Fair enough. It should have been “almost all known ancient cultures”
Well I don’t have a hard time overcoming the fact that gay people were used as a scapegoat for natural disasters, the fall of civilizations etc. What I do have a hard time grasping is the fact that people try so hard to hold on to an outdated model of reasoning. “Oh it might not work, we shouldn’t do it”. Although, I suppose if more people thought like that, we wouldn’t have so many evil things like nuclear power… and… microwaves.
I’m not throwing out “Christians” because they’re “Christians”. Did you not see the quotation marks? I’d hardly call someone looking for a scapegoat “Christian”. Calling for the death of a group of people? Not very Christian.
Yes, because I am not capable of independent thought, I just throw out ideas that others spoon feed me. That fact remains that people allowed themselves to be tricked and led by so-called “religious officials”. I’d call that being blind sheep. You see, unlike most “anti-gay” people, I am quite capable of changing my opinion if I’m presented with logical facts and proof. All I’ve seen from your side of the argument is “what if’s” and the word “faggot” thrown out a few times.
So your argument basically is: “Don’t experiment with it because it might not work out”.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up.
You know, I was persuaded by your argument when this hellish thread started. After a long debate with a friend last weekend (we argued at least two hours) that I completely lost, I realized that the constitution does not protect the definition of the word marriage and that it is essentially unfair and unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry, and I mean MARRY, not just civil unionize…
My dislike for the notion was completely rooted in emotion and until there is a constitutional amendment I can’t see myself being dissuaded. And to be clear, if we amend the constitution to define a word as socially relative as ‘marriage’ we are officially morons.[/quote]
I spent the weekend with friends including a gay couple and we had long discussions on hot button issues. They weren’t too interested in the gay marriage topic. I got the impression that they think the whole thing is a meaningless distraction from real issues.
It is convenient for both sides to “rally the base” and raise money.
I still think it is a silly attempt to redefine reality.
Some sort of civil union to set inheritance rights etc is perfectly acceptable and should have been implemented long ago but in todays society an important part of marriage is procreation and child rearing.
All other things being equal I think a straight couple should have the not over a gay couple when it comes to adoption, custody of children etc.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Beebuddy, it’s nice to hear there are genuinely open minded people out there.
In past conversations, it has often been my experience that people throw out red herring arguments (like the “bureaucratic nightmare” argument most recently discussed) that mask the real reason for their opposition to gay marriage. Most people oppose gay marriage not for logical reasons, but because they find it “icky” to think of two men having sex, or because their religion teaches them that same sex relationships are morally wrong.
Seeing people like you change their opinion based on solid reasoning gives me hope that discussions like this thread may actually be worth having.[/quote]
Well, the thing is that I simply realized that from a rational standpoint that I was wrong. I’m not so sure that I my gut reaction has changed 180 degrees. People are stubborn, you know… Anyway, my arguments to my friend included things like “the gay lifestyle is largely debaucherous and sybaritic and I feel that by legitimizing it society will begin to unravel in future generations blah blah…”, but as an honest person I was forced to admit that there was of course no data or research supporting that argument.
On top of that, I have never been opposed to gays in committed relationships adopting children, so when I thought about it even more I realized that if I can accept that segment of the gay population raising children (it’s been shown that it doesn’t hurt the kids or make them gay or whatever…) why would I deny them the right to call themselves ‘married.’ Indeed, who am I to even think for one second that I COULD deny them that right, especially when there is nothing in the constitution to support that.
So in the end I just realized that I was reacting emotionally to my genuine dislike of the hard partying, debaucherous segment of the gay population that seems to flout everything I value. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-gay, but I do genuinely have the sense that over-liberalization will tend to weaken and decay society as it has done in the Netherlands. BUT, I can’t back that “sense” up with anything and it really isn’t the issue here anyway. The issue is that there is no legal basis for denying gays the right to marriage, and in fact the segment of the gay population that wishes to marry probably has more in common with my wife & me than they do with the stereotypical drug addicted hard-partying gay society.
So in the end I just had to say “Fuck it. I am wrong as motherfucker!” lol
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I spent the weekend with friends including a gay couple and we had long discussions on hot button issues. They weren’t too interested in the gay marriage topic. I got the impression that they think the whole thing is a meaningless distraction from real issues.
It is convenient for both sides to “rally the base” and raise money.
I still think it is a silly attempt to redefine reality.
Some sort of civil union to set inheritance rights etc is perfectly acceptable and should have been implemented long ago but in todays society an important part of marriage is procreation and child rearing.
All other things being equal I think a straight couple should have the not over a gay couple when it comes to adoption, custody of children etc.
[/quote]
You make some valid, but unfortunately in this case, completely non-sequitur points. If you think about it you will conclude that what other people choose to call themselves is none of your business, and neither you nor I, nor the government has any legal basis for denying anyone the right to call themselves ‘married’ and assume the privileges associated with marriage. The constitution does not guarantee us pussy-pounders the right to deny bunghole-pounders anything.
To your statement about ‘changing reality,’ language is fluid and evolves. Marriage has meant many things to many cultures over the eons. Your defense, like mine was, is rooted in emotion. If you are honest with yourself you will realize that you feel that gay marriage somehow cheapens your own marriage. You just have to be rational and get over it.