I'm happy to rectify. Insisting a a different name for the same thing is a bigoted position. To make such a distinction for arbitrary, non-functional reasons is odious. That this distinction otherizes people is hurtful.
The costs of gay marriage
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
I'm happy to rectify. Insisting a a different name for the same thing is a bigoted position. To make such a distinction for arbitrary, non-functional reasons is odious. That this distinction otherizes people is hurtful.
OK.
thanks jazzman12, nicely written post
I'd like to add that I wish we could separate out the discussion of DOMA from the rest of this discussion. As I see it, the cultural/religious/moral aspects of the discussion form the more intangible aspects of the questions of acceptance of "gay marriage" - and whether it's called this or that and all of those more semantic arguments. But there are tangible effects too, and those are what I'm more interested in equalizing right now. Such as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
In effect, the current law punishes those who are not in a traditional marriage as defined by DOMA. I do not think people should be punished for having a different life-style.
Or put a little differently, I don't think someone should be rewarded just because they have the physical ability to at least pretend to perform a sex act in a certain way. Those of you who insist that DOMA should remain in force essentially want to reward people for this ability and punish those who can't at least pretend to have this ability.
Whether or not they really have the ability is meaningless....
that doesn't make much sense to me
I DON'T THINK SOMEONE SHOULD BE REWARDED JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE PHYSICAL ABILITY TO AT LEAST PRETEND TO PERFORM A SEX ACT IN A CERTAIN WAY.
And that's what the issue seems to boil down to when you strip away all the other stuff.
I'd like to add that I wish we could separate out the discussion of DOMA from the rest of this discussion. As I see it, the cultural/religious/moral aspects of the discussion form the more intangible aspects of the questions of acceptance of "gay marriage" - and whether it's called this or that and all of those more semantic arguments. But there are tangible effects too, and those are what I'm more interested in equalizing right now. Such as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
In effect, the current law punishes those who are not in a traditional marriage as defined by DOMA. I do not think people should be punished for having a different life-style.
Or put a little differently, I don't think someone should be rewarded just because they have the physical ability to at least pretend to perform a sex act in a certain way. Those of you who insist that DOMA should remain in force essentially want to reward people for this ability and punish those who can't at least pretend to have this ability.
Whether or not they really have the ability is meaningless....
that doesn't make much sense to me
I DON'T THINK SOMEONE SHOULD BE REWARDED JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE PHYSICAL ABILITY TO AT LEAST PRETEND TO PERFORM A SEX ACT IN A CERTAIN WAY.
And that's what the issue seems to boil down to when you strip away all the other stuff.
One argument that I hear is that it is about defending the sanctity of marriage. I think that is a very noble goal and one that should be given more support. However I do not think preventing gay marriage does that. I think it weakens it. I think you do better to protect marraige thru other means. Perhaps a marriage course before marriage, a waiting period to be divorced perhaps. Doing away with the drive thru wedding service...
Protecting marriage is great. There are just better ways to do it.
Protecting marriage is great. There are just better ways to do it.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Rep worthy post. Those who wish to protect marriage would be better served protecting the tradition of marriage rather than the nebulous idea of traditional marriage. Opening the right to marriage to those whose lifestyle differs from the norm strengthens and
upholds the importance of it in our culture rather than the opposite in my view. I'm sure there are many out there, especially in the younger generations, who have a hard time viewing marriage as an important institution when it is withheld from such a large group of society for something as inconsequential as which sex they are attracted to.
Last edited:
An interesting point of departure. Please don't go.
men and women are genetically different. XX vs XY chromosome pairs. *** and XXY and YXX occur, and are called trisomies, and are known to be correlated to specific differences from the regular XX and XY.
men and women are developmentally different, largely as a result of effects of hormones on specific tissues, including the brain.
One of the largest concerns we should have as a society is the effects of chemicals we create as they become our environment. Plastics of some types are "plasticized" with phytoestrogenic compounds like bisPhenol A, and these compounds are being detected in soil and water and have been observed in some areas being associated with feminizing certain species. The real danger is we are losing our real men, and what all they are worth to families and society. Here we've got a whole lot of men who are just off the track hormonally and can't, or perhaps don't respond normally to natural stimulii that promote the actions to, function as men. I don't think that's a plus, personally. I don't think it's "equal to" being a functional man, so to speak. Definitely not what I want for my life.
Biologically, actions that are not somehow helpful to reproduction, are not sexual actions. Well, in the least they are not the effectively "right" actions.
I know some women who, I suspect, would like to marry their cat, and who in fact do put animals in their wills. Some men, in Wyoming according to some accounts, have true love for sheep. I don't think their wishes are any less valid than anyone else's, and I don't care to involve myself in their private lives, but I'll be damned if I have to get all timid about my "bigotry" for thinking they're not as acceptable or beneficial to society as a man and woman who are living for one another and for their children, working to be beneficial members of society. There is no reason not to honor them as good examples, and no reason to try to make anything else a "marriage".
Precisely because it is a distinction that has a purpose. It's not even a "purpose" invented by man, it's just something coming from our natures, from nature itself. All we're doing with structuring laws that deal with it as a special case is recognizing the fact of nature, and adapting our laws to that situation, with some purpose in mind. Like showing kids that moms and dads are important, and helping moms and dads take better care of their kids.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
So you're saying that marrying a certain type of human is as absurd as marrying a cat or sheep. And gay people shouldn't take offense to that?
I'm saying "marriage" sensibly means a coming together of a man and a woman. I wouldn't quibble about anything that conforms to human intimate relations involving a connection that is man plus woman. I didn't say anything about absurd. I said I think some people could feel a relationship with an animal is as important to them as a gay relationship can be between humans. I've got a dog, for example. I know lots of people who consider their dogs as good or better than kids.
If you think you're entitled to take offense you're just off base with reality. People have a right to think whatever they want about you, and you have no right to demand they change to please you. And that is where I blow off and take my opinion to another thread.
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?14990-Longest-Thread-Ever/page164
Last edited:
I've had a wonderful idea. Instead of homosexuals calling their marriages "civil unions" why don't people with "traditional" marriages performed in churches call their marriages "Christian marriage" and that way they can continue to feel special and there will be a clear distinction between gay marriage and even marriages like mine which was performed by a judge and no religious stuff took place during the ceremony. You could even get bumper stickers that say "proud member of a Christian marriage" and maybe have special T-shirts (for those folks who aren't fortunate enough to have special underwear).
Interesting that even a good libertarian can go for a statist solution by suggesting something everyone else can do to solve a personal problem. At least, Gameface, you didn't propose to make this "solution" a new law actually enforceable by jackbooted thugs with badges.
People who believe in human rights should see the sense in letting other people think and say what they like, and leave it out of legislatures and courts.
What I do propose is changing some statutes or laws that don't necessarily involve changing the meanings some people attach to words. Let the laws use a term like "household partners" , "legal household members". Let anyone who wants to join legal "household" simply file a legal notice with the country clerk declaring their association. Make every household legal and equal under the revised statutes.
Make employers and other folks doing business with a "household" treat them all the same in all their contracts. That would mean no matter what hypersensitive values and meanings we attach to our relations, we can call them what we like and define them in our own minds and think what we please. And let everyone else have their opinions too. Could still talk about the merits of prejudice or hate, but that's essentially always going to be part of the human condition, but some people can try to be more understanding if they wish, just not at the insistence of legal force.
the legal force would apply in a way that does enforce human rights without giving the government the position of imposing value judgments on our choices.
Again, I think the issue is hijacked as part of a statist/oligarchal agenda of human management which will if pursued under the arguments being made, result in the "lesser" masses, the subjects of the oligarchs, losing more freedom. I call that a sort of "neo-slavery" and it just feels like the plantation managers are insisting too much on exactly how we all are saying "yes sir".
Why does "sensibly" only apply to the this particular relationship?
No person is divorced from the culture around them. For better or worse, the term "married" is used to give a cultural stamp of approval to a life-long commitment between adults, whether they are religious or not, intend to have children or not, etc. To exclude gay couples from this designation is to, culturally, exclude them from the status of being fully approved. It should not be the role of government to decide which legal couplings are considered culturally approved.
I have seen references to a Georgia court case from the 1960s, with a quote about producing effeminate men, but none that have identified the actual case. I therefore withdraw this claim, as I don't have reliable evidence.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
This thread was an amusing, and a broad discussion of the topic. Some of you were pretty persuasive despite yourselves.
Questions that came up while reading:
Why is it okay for the people of Maryland to vote to call homosexual unions marriage but not okay for the people of California to reject calling homosexual unions marriage?
How can it be unconstitutional to vote in order to amend the constitution? (prop 8) Why is it acceptable for 9 government appointed people to overrule what 100's of thousands of citizens find culturally acceptable if that shouldn't be the role of government. (<--goes to One Brow's statement on what the role of government is in all this).
Questions that came up while reading:
Why is it okay for the people of Maryland to vote to call homosexual unions marriage but not okay for the people of California to reject calling homosexual unions marriage?
How can it be unconstitutional to vote in order to amend the constitution? (prop 8) Why is it acceptable for 9 government appointed people to overrule what 100's of thousands of citizens find culturally acceptable if that shouldn't be the role of government. (<--goes to One Brow's statement on what the role of government is in all this).
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
The Eugenicists/Darwiniacs claimed interracial progeny was "unfit" for the gene pool, which is why they sought to outlawed those marriages.
For the same reason it would be good for one state to call interracial unions marriage, and bad for another state to reject calling interracial unions marriage. In our culture, we accept that there are individual rights, and that among these is the right to participate in state-recognized institutions such as marriage. The will of the majority is not considered sufficient, in and of itself, to abridge those rights.
A constitution is not allowed to contradict itself.
Those 9 appointees are the people's method of protecting the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority, among other things.
You had three really good questions, and then followed it up with this false garbage. Ugh.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
You missed the point of the question. Homosexuals accept the right of one state to have a vote on whether calling homosexual unions marriage because the vote went their way, but don't accept the right of another state to have the same vote because it didn't go their way. Do states have a right to hold a vote on redefining state-recognized institutions or don't they?
There has been no such "right" in the history of country. How did there suddenly become a "right" to call your particular type of union marriage?
What is the contradiction in this case?
Your argument talked nothing of rights or tyranny, and thus your response has no relevance to my question.
You said: To exclude gay couples from this designation is to, culturally, exclude them from the status of being fully approved. It should not be the role of government to decide which legal couplings are considered culturally approved.
So again I ask: Why is it acceptable for 9 government appointed people to overrule what 100's of thousands of citizens find culturally acceptable if that shouldn't be the role of government?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
One Brow claimed this was false, but he seems to be familiar with Loving vs. Virginia so should know the origins of the Racial Integrity Act they passed in 1924.
Arm in Arm: Gender said:
I recognize the reality that such elections are needed, even though ideally, they should not be had, because civil rights should not be up for a vote.
Our culture, and our constitution, recognizes that there are such things as unenumerated rights, rights that have never been spelled out or recognized.
Equal treatment under California law vs. a discriminatory practice.
Are you feeling OK? I've talked about rights continually, and "tyranny of the majority" is a well-known idiom.
Because they are preventing the the 100s of thousands from using the government to enforce what the government has no role in determining.
It is, because "Eugenicists/Darwiniacs" is a false conflation. You might as well say 'atheists/Mormons oppose this policy', for example. Even your very quote makes clear that the eugenicists were not interested in the science, just in supporting their views. To the degree that such a thing as a "Darwiniac" exists or could exist, they would have to believe that diversity is important for the survival of a species. Eugenicists believe in reducing diversity. Anyone who was a "Darwiniac" would have supported interracial marriage.