Gay Marriage

[AFPheonix]

I'm not arguing for gay marriage one way or another. I'm just stating that marriage in the US is defined by the surrounding society, and they have voted to keep it traditional. You may not agree with the decision, but that's the way it is.

And as for your comment that "gay Oregonians would block other family units being able to take advantage of the rights you listed," that's not so. There were two bills proposed, one that had all of the other rights for everyone, and one more specifically for gays. They fought hard against the one that would more, in my opinion, distribute those benefits equally, in favor of the bill that provided only for Gay partnerships.

And as for all the rest, I haven't stated that I'm against polygamy or any other partnership of consenting adults. But I do think it's a slippery slope that we should at least be aware of, pragmatic about, and approach it with intellectual honesty. It doesn't just affect those who are in those partnerships, it affects society as a whole, especially when there are legal ramifications.

I am an Oregonian too. I can't seem to find the text of either of those bills. Care to post them for me? I suspect the other bill had some serious stuff wrong with it to keep people from choosing it over the other. It's not like Oregonians haven't passed half-assed measures before. Again, I think they went for the more legally sound one not to be shitty to other people groups, but to pass the one that would be more likely to be upheld as law.

You say you aren't against polygamy, but clearly you see it as lower on the "slope" compared to plain ol' hetero marriage. But, that's hardly the argument here. Gay marriage wouldn't lead to other forms of marriage necessarily because, as has been pointed out many times, that the wording simply needs to be defined as a contract between TWO consenting adults. There's your traction and brakes to counteract that slippery slope.

As for surrounding society, once upon a time, surrounding society wasn't too keen on many things we take for granted today. The popular majority position is not always the right one, this is why we are a constitutional republic, so as to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Start the song: Our Maligned LGBT Brethren

I think this arguement should have begun and ended at the fact that a religeous angle like what constitues marraige should not, can not be legislated by the government, and thus the state laws are unconstitutional.

I agree with smiley on the ridiculousness on the 'but they CAN marry a woman like anyone else!' arguement... this is about marraige among people who love each other, NO ONE has the right to prevent that, especially since this society does so much to benefit married couples.

As for that Phelps ************er, I have given myself three options:

A: Ignore
B: Activeley speak against them
C: hang around at their protests after getting my CCL and waiting for one of them to lob a brick (I bet the safety slugs will hurt MORE)

End of Song

ETA: For some reason, I have the urge to start a 'Guns for Gays' movement
*runs off to make bumper stickers*

[pantherquest2000]

Smiley,

Your whole response makes my last few points exactly. You know nothing about me. You don't know my political values, my religious values, or even where I'm from. You don't read all the relevant information in post (not your fault, but it didn't stop you from explicating based on your suppositions), and then proceed to make personal attacks on my values, education, and so on. You will never get anyone on your side by attacking them. Gay rights will never get the Evangelicals, Catholics and Mormons on their side by protesting their churches, threatening them personally and financially, and so forth. The fundamentals will never get GLBT to give them the benefit of the doubt if they demonize them either.

My point, AGAIN, is that this is a highly complex issue that has significant impact on the nation as a whole. No one group should be allowed to determine who gets input and who doesn't. We won't come to an appropriate, fair, and acceptable solution until the tenor of the argument changes, until all the worries of the religious groups have been allayed, and until gays have the legal rights assured to married couples.

In Oregon Measure 36 would never have happened if Multnomah County Commissioners hadn't taken it upon themselves to secretly, and in partnership with gay rights groups, plan a way to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples without any public input, and without any real authority. The public outcry was tremendous, and it wasn't just about gay marriage, it was about public discourse and public involvement. So now, "one man one woman" is enshrined in the Oregon Constitution because of open hostility toward the voting public.

Again I state that marriage is a public/social institution and should be decided upon by the public. The only way to get someone to vote your way is to show them that you have taken their fears into account and tried to address them, not to bully or force it upon them.

Gay rights groups want to make this about homophobia and bigotry, but that's only a piece of the puzzle. I know several people who voted for 36 simply because they were pissed off with the county commissioners.

[smileyeagle1021]

Panther, how many times must it be pointed out to those who oppose gay marriage that your rights to religious freedom has always and will always be protected. When gay marriage is legalized, you'll still be free to believe whatever you want, your church will be able to preach whatever it wants, and most important to your argument, they will always be able to, just as they always have been able to, chose who they do and do not allow to marry in the church.
Don't think that's the case?
I don't know your faith, so I'll speak in hypotheticals. Say you are a baptist... just try to go into a Catholic church and have them give you a Catholic marriage... they will very politely yet firmly tell you that it's not possible, the only people they will provide a marriage ceremony for is members of the church in good standing. Or, an even more likely scenario, say you are a member of the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS) and would really like to have your wedding in the Salt Lake Temple (controlled by the LDS church). The LDS church will tell you it's a no go, you must be a member of the church and in good standing.
No court has ever ruled that a church can't require that the couple requesting a marriage be members in good standing, and they've never forced the church to change the requirements for being a member in good standing... gay marriage will not change that as long as the first amendment is in place.
I'm not able to open the NY Times link you posted while I'm at work, but I'm willing to bet it's about the New Jersey case which has NOTHING to do with a church's ability to determine who it marries. The church was operating part of its ground tax free because they had opened it to the public as a park area. As such, they had to follow the sames rules that a government run park would have to follow to maintain that tax free status, and the government is not allowed to say no to a request to perform a commitment ceremony at a public pavilian. And the lawsuit ruled that the rest of the land would remain tax excempt, only the pavilian would be taxed if the church was going to chose not to follow the rules set forth by the government.
ETA- now that I've had a chance to open the link and read the article I would like to offer an apology. I made an assumption on what the article would be about based on previous arguments that have been made, which was wrong. I will however leave the rebuttal to that article in my reply, because whether or not it is relevant to this specific reply, it is still something relevant to point out in the larger argument.
That aside, pretty much every state that has legalized gay marriage has put clauses into the laws specifying that churches can't be forced to perform the ceremonies... even though such clauses are not necassary.
So in this case, yes, there is an error in YOUR argument as well as virtue in mine. If YOU are too arrogant to consider you argument may be wrong, then there is a problem.

Oh, and if ever you think that the first amendment won't protect your church's speach against gays and lesbians, I'd ask you to look at Mr. Phelp's church... everything he has said has so far been protected... I doubt that will change.

And one final thought... if me living my life and living with the person I love (if I ever find him) in any way affects your faith, then the problem isn't me, the problem is your faith (to paraphrase a very wise woman, Ms Roosevelt, no one can lessen your faith without your consent... ok, so she really said no one can lessen your self esteem without your consent, but it still works), however, your faith being forced upon me by legislation DOES affect my life. My church says there is no problem with homosexuality... how is your church trying to get the government to not recognize my eventual marriage protecting my freedom of religion?

ETA- the argument that gay people have the same rights as straights because a gay man can marry any woman of his chosing, just as a straight man can is a straw man arguement at best... because, when gay marriage is recognized, gay men and straight men will still have the exact same rights... both will be able to marry the man or woman of their chosing... just because a gay man isn't going to chose to marry a woman and a straight man won't chose to marry a man, is irrelevent, they'll both have equal rights under the law.

Double ETA- where did you go to college? At least in Utah, public speaking classes (of which persuasive speach and debate is a part of the curriculum) is a required course for all majors... I'd assume that is a similar requirement for many states... one of the first things taught in those classes is what constitutes a valid logical argument... and slippery slope is one of the arguments that is specifically targeted as NEVER being considered a logical argument.

Triple ETA- and yes, I know attacking a speakers credibility is only a logical argument if it relates to their claim to a specific expertise, which you have not done, but damnit, it makes me feel better

revisioin- those last two paragraphs were out of line. I won't delete them because I don't believe that things once said can so easily be swept under the rug and I'm not sure that they should.

[pantherquest2000]

I'm not arguing for gay marriage one way or another. I'm just stating that marriage in the US is defined by the surrounding society, and they have voted to keep it traditional. You may not agree with the decision, but that's the way it is.

And as for your comment that "gay Oregonians would block other family units being able to take advantage of the rights you listed," that's not so. There were two bills proposed, one that had all of the other rights for everyone, and one more specifically for gays. They fought hard against the one that would more, in my opinion, distribute those benefits equally, in favor of the bill that provided only for Gay partnerships.

And as for all the rest, I haven't stated that I'm against polygamy or any other partnership of consenting adults. But I do think it's a slippery slope that we should at least be aware of, pragmatic about, and approach it with intellectual honesty. It doesn't just affect those who are in those partnerships, it affects society as a whole, especially when there are legal ramifications.

[AFPheonix]

Panther, if the situation was reversed and it was only gay marriage that was legal, how do you think you'd feel, as a heterosexual person, to be told that you have the right to marry, but it is only to a person that you simply are not wired to be attracted to?
That is not equal rights.
As for the Oregon thing, it's because Oregon instituted a Domestic Partnership thing because a constitutional ban against gay marriage went in. I honestly don't think gay Oregonians would block other family units being able to take advantage of the rights you listed. However, that's not what they're fighting for at this point in the game. Trying to get that other wording would have clouded the bill and made it more likely to get struck down. It's not because evil gays were rubbing their hands together with glee to strike out at them thar breeders.

As for the slippery slope thing, that argument does not apply. Make the wording of the law state that the union is between 2 adults able to give consent. That's it. Maybe in the future when poly amorous people can be seen as people too, we can have legally defined polygamy. Unfortunately, that will require a fair bit of legal wrangling, but I honestly wouldn't mind, as long as it again was worded so that only adults able to give consent were allowed to take part.

The "traditional roots of marriage" thing is also complete crap as an argument, but I won't repeat myself, I already addressed that in a previous post. Marriage traditions have included child brides, plants, multiple wives and a few concubines thrown in to boot. We don't really have marriage as our ancestors knew it anymore.

As for the deeply held beliefs, once upon a time people firmly believed that brown people weren't really people. Fortunately we grew out of that. People will have to grow out of their bigotry for gay people too. Yay progress. That's not to say they can't continue to privately disapprove, they can, no one's going to be thought police, but they won't be allowed to outwardly discriminate against gays anymore.
If we insert any other minority group in the place of gays in any of these arguments, the people who are against it would look like tremendous bigots.
"I am against fat people marrying because of my religion."
"As a caterer, I won't serve at a marriage between Asians for religious reasons"
"I refuse to do flowers for Jews for religious reasons"

Why should we treat people who think gays are icky any differently than we would people who would say any of the above statements?

[Slytovhand]

Awww.... Youtube???

( I still can't get to it from here)

Sylvia - thanks, I didn't know that one!

In other words, they want to change what the definition of marriage has been for thousands of years, across continents and cultures, but more especially, in Western culture.

Allow me a (bad) quote... THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, now that that is out of the system ... the Greeks, considered the founders of our Western Civilisation, did have a form of 'marriage' between homosexual men. Plato (in Athens) espouses in Phaedrus that the love and bonds between 'a man and his boy' far excedes the love between a man and a woman, and that heterosexual marriages were merely for reproduction (and acquisitions). So, that's already 2 examples to counter said statement.

The slippery slope... well, in regards to children, firstly, any 'marriage' must be between consenting adults, so that slope has just hit a brick wall. As for polygamy.. there are already precedents, and there is also another thread on the subject. Including from the legal aspects. The other things you've described? Perhaps it's merely a matter of time... perhaps in the not too distant future, the whole concept of 'marriage' will be laughed upon (ever read Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K Le Guin?)

[BlaqueKatt]

This is how I view it:

Homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals at this point. They are able to legally marry any person of the opposite sex that they choose. However, for obvious reasons, they choose not to exercise this right. Instead, they would like to institute a new right, which is that they can marry a person of the same sex. In other words, they want to change what the definition of marriage has been for thousands of years, across continents and cultures, but more especially, in Western culture.<snip> Unfortunately for gay rights, this has meant maintaining the historical and "traditional" model of marriage.

I humbly suggest you watch this
and this
and for a bit of a lighter take
"Proposition 8 the musical"

[pantherquest2000]

This is how I view it:

Homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals at this point. They are able to legally marry any person of the opposite sex that they choose. However, for obvious reasons, they choose not to exercise this right. Instead, they would like to institute a new right, which is that they can marry a person of the same sex. In other words, they want to change what the definition of marriage has been for thousands of years, across continents and cultures, but more especially, in Western culture.

If you take religion out of the argument, then marriage must be viewed simply as a construct of society, and as such, it is within the rights of that society to determine what they will and will not accept for "marriage." Within the United States, individuals have executed their rights, as citizens, to determine how they want marriage defined (e.g. Prop 8 California, Measure 36 Oregon, etc.). Unfortunately for gay rights, this has meant maintaining the historical and "traditional" model of marriage.

What I find interesting, especially in the recent Oregon example, is how hard Gay rights groups fought to make the domestic rights laws only apply to gays and lesbians. I have lived with siblings at various times, and it would be nice to share insurance benefits and other legal rights, but in this recent Oregon law, such inclusions were specifically rejected. Why should gay couples have more right to legal rights and health insurance benefits than other "committed" couples like siblings, seniors, adult children living with parents and so on?

It's not crazy to consider the gay-marriage question a slippery slope, good or bad. If you have gay-marriage, there is no logical reason to deny polygamy, polygany, and any other number of other constructs from being called "marriage" and applying legal status and rights to those unions.

It is not a simple decision to make. If gay marriage is allowed, it could potentially infringe on the free expression of religion (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us...iefs.html?_r=2), which is a fundamental principle enshrined in the constitution. So we would in effect, have two constitutional principles conflicting with each other: equal rights and religious freedom. Who would win and why? Christians aren't the only group this would affect either. There are many non-Christian world religions that don't approve of homosexuality.

It doesn't help the cause either way to demonize, belittle, and condescend to those who oppose your personal beliefs. Both sides come at the argument from deeply held values. You never win someone to your way of thinking by showing them the "error" of their ways, but only by showing them the virtue of your ways.

[smileyeagle1021]

And don't even get me started on the people who attend "Christ Church" and blow a fuse when you refer to it as "Church of Christ". They mean the same thing! Name your new denomination something new or quitcherbitchin.
.

yeah, and don't even think of confusing the Church of Jesus Christ with the Community of Christ... even though both of them use almost identical scriptures (both use the Old and New Testimants as well as the Book of Mormon, the only difference is a few versus in the Doctrines and Covenents).

[guywithashovel]

No, but the quote that I was responding to was made by an Evangelical Christian who claimed marriage as "our thing." For some reason I don't think he was including people of all faiths (including Muslims) in that statement.

That's true. I just thought I would throw that in as a general statement.

And in response to others who have pointed it out, it is also true that not all sects of Christianity consider homosexuality a sin. That needs to be mentioned as well.

[Sylvia727]

Are you talking Christianity as in just the Christians (separate from Lutheran, Methodist, etc) or Christianity as a whole (as opposed to the Jewish Faith and Catholicism)?

Ummmm... what????

There is a denomination of the Christian religion whose followers are called simply Christians. Actually, I believe there are several denominations of Christianity who call themselves simply Christians, to "distinguish" them from all the Lutherans and Baptists and what-have-you. Yeah, that bugs me too, on a purely grammar-elistist level. It makes no sense, it does not communicate meaning clearly, it is bad language. And don't even get me started on the people who attend "Christ Church" and blow a fuse when you refer to it as "Church of Christ". They mean the same thing! Name your new denomination something new or quitcherbitchin.

*Ahem* Anyway, I believe this is the concept to which daleduke is referring. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, Catholicism is a branch of Christianity, but it is not a branch of Protestantism. For added confusing goodness.

[Slytovhand]

Are you talking Christianity as in just the Christians (separate from Lutheran, Methodist, etc) or Christianity as a whole (as opposed to the Jewish Faith and Catholicism)?

Ummmm... what????


Boozy, my remarks on the UN High Commisioner (and I knew I should have added bits when I posted it ) was that if it was 'ruled' to be against a person's human rights to deny marriage based on sexuality, it would give a massive stimulus to those querying the validity of such discrimination. I know they don't have a lot of power, and no 'jurisdiction', but I would think the effect of having such an important body say it officially would be pretty strong.

Mugabe?? Yeah, well... while the UN hasn't got much power (only the ability to talk, and occasionally rally some support), yes - not a lot will happen (see GD's thread). Besides, the UN is made up of lots and lots of different bits... I'm sure the New York office isn't inundated with so much stuff it can't see it's way to taking a quick peek at Cali.

[Boozy]

But yeah, not all of them are religious. And it should be mentioned that Christianity is not the only religion that objects to homosexuality, too.

No, but the quote that I was responding to was made by an Evangelical Christian who claimed marriage as "our thing." For some reason I don't think he was including people of all faiths (including Muslims) in that statement.

[smileyeagle1021]

And it should be mentioned that Christianity is not the only religion that objects to homosexuality, too.

along that vain, it should be mentioned that not all christian sects object to homosexuality... I am very much Christian and still very much gay... the two don't have to be in opposition.