Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Historically, very few children are brought up in families with gay people, so it is not really a good comparison. In fact, this could be one of the better arguments against gay marriage, in that the vast majority of those who marry, will not want children.

As opposed to no positive evidence for the gay marriage side. No contest.

Consider this refuted. Start reading:

http://www.apa.org/pi/l&gbib.html

[Ned]

I love seen the Dems struggle with this issue. Here is recent exchange I witnessed,

Moderator: What is your position?

Dem: I favor leaving this matter to the states and oppose a constitutional amendment.

Moderator: But what if the Supreme Court rules the DoMA unconstitutional?

Dem: I would hope they would not.

Moderator: But what if they did?

Dem: I think gay marriage is a matter for the states to decide.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I challenge this assertion. Most children are brought up in marriages with two parents, even if they are not born into marriages with two parents. I'm not sure what you mean by the verb: brought up, which is rather vague.

Marriage is beneficial to women, in that they on average will be better off married, then single. Some will feel trapped, but these will be in the minority.

Right.

Whereabouts are 'most children' raised in marriages with TWO parents (presumably heterosexual)?

In all cultures? In all Western industrialized nations?

The statement 'marriage is beneficial to women' is so vague and non-specific as to be meaningless.

I suspect it is simply a piece of wish-fulfilment on your part: your religious/political ideals incline you to believe this, so you blandly state it is so.

[Ned]

Molly, I assume you do not oppose domestic partner cases and laws that give rights to partners who live together for extended periods of time.

[MrFun]

Things are heating up now in Portland, Oregon over this issue (if someone else mentioned this already, I can't be arsed to read all the recent posts).


Seems like the issue of marriages regardless of sexual orientation is spreading to more parts of the country. Can we expect it to arise in yet another city or state soon??

[Ned]

MrFun, the civil rebellion is looking more and more like the "underground railway" during the slave era and the sheltering of Jews during WWII. People are taking the law into their own hands.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, I assume you do not oppose domestic partner cases and laws that give rights to partners who live together for extended periods of time.

And you'd be right.

If you're going to have 'rights' then I'm all for more people having more rights, and not some people having exclusive rights.

Don't you believe in equality, Ned?

[MrFun]

I'm kinda worried though -- these actions by mayors can either break through what has been an impasse for too long, or create a vicious backlash from some of the Republican political leaders in cooperation with fundies.

[Ned]

Molly, yes I do.

But I raised the point b/c the woman in the Lee Marvin case got the equivalent of community property rights in Lee's substantial income. So, "marriages" or "domestic partner" rights do in fact benefit women who to the extent that they stay home and raise the kids, because here in Kalifornia, they are deemed to be an equal partner in all the "marital" income.

To the extent these rights extend to gays, ditto.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm kinda worried though -- these actions by mayors can either break through what has been an impasse for too long, or create a vicious backlash from some of the Republican political leaders in cooperation with fundies.

Mr. Fun, it will also force the Dems off their "non position" position.

I would hope that guys like Schwarzenegger have a say in the upcoming Republican convention. His popularity cannot have gone unnoticed to the Party leadership.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm kinda worried though -- these actions by mayors can either break through what has been an impasse for too long, or create a vicious backlash from some of the Republican political leaders in cooperation with fundies.

But the people who would oppose gay and lesbian 'marriages' are the ones who would do so, no matter when you thought the time was fit to perform those marriage ceremonies.

A life lived in fear, is a life half-lived: do the right thing now.

Which children of Lee Marvin's did the woman raise, Ned?

And why should it be exclusively, or mostly, women who do so?

Marriages also take place outside California and the United States, and you cannot state that in all cases, the marriage benefits the woman.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by molly bloom


But the people who would oppose gay and lesbian 'marriages' are the ones who would do so, no matter when you thought the time was fit to perform those marriage ceremonies.

A life lived in fear, is a life half-lived: do the right thing now.

I'm not exactly cowering with fear, Molly but I can't help but recall historical examples where backlash has put a stop to equal rights for a long period of time -- such as what happened in the South after the failure of Reconstruction in regards to race relations.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun


I'm not exactly cowering with fear, Molly but I can't help but recall historical examples where backlash has put a stop to equal rights for a long period of time -- such as what happened in the South after the failure of Reconstruction in regards to race relations.

Very good point, MrFun. That put the issue of civil rights on hold for 100 years.

[Ned]

Molly, on Lee Marvin - there were no kids involved, IIRC. She just lived with him in a sexual relationship. That was enough to give her 50% of Marvin's income, which was substantial.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by MrFun


I'm not exactly cowering with fear, Molly but I can't help but recall historical examples where backlash has put a stop to equal rights for a long period of time -- such as what happened in the South after the failure of Reconstruction in regards to race relations.

The fear isn't your literal fear- it's fear of doing what is just.

'There is only one argument for doing something; the rest are arguments for doing nothing.'

F.M. Cornford, Microcosmographia Academica

Don't act justly now, for fear that you might raise expectations that you could act more justly in the future, and not be able to meet those expectations; and whatever you do, do not carry out any admittedly just action now, for fear that either you, or your successors might not have the courage to do so in some future instance, which could superficially resemble this one.

There's also the 'time is not yet right' argument for doing nothing:

people should not this moment do what they think is right at that moment, because the moment at which they think it right, has not yet arrived.

Each uncustomary or untraditional public action is wrong, or if it is right, it is a dangerous precedent. In which case, nothing should ever be attempted for the first time.

All arguments for doing nothing.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, on Lee Marvin - there were no kids involved, IIRC. She just lived with him in a sexual relationship. That was enough to give her 50% of Marvin's income, which was substantial.

So being umarried, but living with Lee Marvin in an intimate physical and emotional relationship benefited her.

In which case, the rights to Marvin's income or property were not conditional upon her being married to him, but proving that they shared a relationship.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


So where is the problem? Any religion should be able to practice whatever it wants (as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others). These churches are not my church and I am in no way connected to them.

Gay people can declare themselves to form an exclusively gay church if they like, and conduct 'marriage' ceremonies dressed in black leather and tutus. I don't care. The point is that I don't have to recognise it as a 'marriage'.

YOU don't have to recognize anything. YOU don't have to recognize that Paris is the capital of France, if you don't want to. But you seem want the government to say there will be no legal recognition of a gay marriage. If you recall, your original point (cleaned up and paraphrased) was why don't gay people find their own term and leave marriage to us Christians? Well, some Christians (though clearly not you) have no problem marrying homosexuals and recognizing their marriages as exactly that. So maybe you should just rephrase your position to "why can't everyone who disagrees with me and my church bow to our desires to force everyone to recognize what we deem to be marriage?"

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Well I'd guess that even the repubs in Mass are pretty liberal. I don't think that was the main point of the article though. His main points seemed to be that a minority of Americans support gay marriage and that they are not respecting the rule of law by getting married anyway. Personally I'm undecided as far as the moral question goes, but I do think that if you disagree with a law you should work to change it instead of breaking it.

All court have the power than legal right to declare law unconstitution. I think we could put in that the constitution cannot be change to unmine the athority of the court untrill 100 years pass.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by molly bloom


All arguments for doing nothing.

I'm not arguing for doing nothing.


I guess I'm just not as idealistic as others in that these recent developments will bring total victory for us.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by molly bloom


That's troglodyte, Ned. If you're going to be a smarty-pants, get your spelling right.

Some other things that have given 'marriages' more stability:

inability in many societies for women to get a divorce

inability in many societies for women to inherit or own property

inability in many societies for women to control their own sexuality/body

the punishment inflicted on women who transgress
(honour killings in the Middle East, dowry killings in India, the servile status of women in many societies, Latin American 'machismo' culture)

the controls exerted by religion and community

and so on and so on.

You can find example of these stabilizers in all sorts of societies, in many different cultures and times throughout human history, Ned.

In Islam than woman can divorce her hushand but it is harder( than man can divorce his wife by saying three time in fornt of witness I divorce thee woman.) first she cannot have sex with than other man while divorce her hushand she needed some legal ground like he beat her up. There is no community property right in Islam but the man might be make to pay support to his wife and child support for they childern. Even in Saudi Arabic than woman can divorce her hushand it isnot as easy in america where we make it too easy.

Than man can only divorce and remarry his wife three time when he divorce her when angery at her. Then he must wait untril she marry someone also and that man divorce her then he can remarry her.

Honour killing isnot support in Islam as Islam consider it murber. Honour killing is than old tribal custom.

[devilmunchkin]

usa..and i fully believe that homosexuals should have equal rights to straights...in marriage and ALL things

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Kontiki
YOU don't have to recognize anything. YOU don't have to recognize that Paris is the capital of France, if you don't want to. But you seem want the government to say there will be no legal recognition of a gay marriage.

Absolutely. Got it in one. Wow - what a bright chappie!

If you recall, your original point (cleaned up and paraphrased) was why don't gay people find their own term and leave marriage to us Christians?

A reasonable paraphrase, which I stand by. You are doing well - do go on...

Well, some Christians (though clearly not you) have no problem marrying homosexuals and recognizing their marriages as exactly that. So maybe you should just rephrase your position to "why can't everyone who disagrees with me and my church bow to our desires to force everyone to recognize what we deem to be marriage?"

Oh dear, falls at the last hurdle. Well never mind, maybe next time.

The point was that I don't want the state to recognise the union of two gay people as a 'marriage'. Since the word 'marriage' has religious conotations, I believe that should be left up to the church. In fact I think this is why the more conservative community don't want gay 'marriages' either - clearly the accept the notion of gay people having long term relationships - they just don't want it to be considered a 'marriage'.

If you had ever bothered to read my posts, you would have noticed me advocating (way way way way back) that all state sanctioned unions be only 'civil unions' and that the ceremony of marriage should be up to individual church (or whatever) communities. All the rights, tax breaks, legal status etc would be confered by the civil union, and religious people could have a religious ceremony to sanctify it in their eyes if they wish.

I don't understand why homosexual gentlemen find that idea so objectionable.

I would actually take things further and allow any relationship to take on 'civil union' status. There should be no sex implied what-so-ever. Two friends who have no sexual relationship should be able to have the same rights as a couple imho, if they so desire - why should the state insist that you sleep together? Indeed, it should also allow for polygamous relationships - the civil union should be able to have multiple participants who may or may not slepp with each other (it makes no difference, and there should be no implictaion), sort of like a club.

I think this would be great. I can imagine church communities becoming one big union, so that all property and wealth were shared between them like one big happy family. They would still have religious marriages within that union and continue to be sexually monogamous etc, but would have extra rights concerning other members of the congregation. It would be like the true vision the Marx had, of 'communism' on a small scale, with no private ownership., only ownership within the union.

[Whaleboy]

You're a tad late with your news. Egypt boasts a new 'Library of Alexandria' where presumably the most popular book will be 'The Satanic Verses.'

Sounds good to me!! Nice link there! I may actually pay it a visit at some point, if it's in any way comparable to its predacessor.

Oh, and Obi Gyn, if you seek the 'truth' perhaps you could stop using meaningless phrases such as 'gay lifestyle'.

Seconded.

Whaleboy, I do not understand your point about imposing legalities in separation of couples destablizing relationships even while making them last longer. Please explain.

Sure, I'm sorry I wasn't too clear intially. Firstly the law is the state's way of imposing things, and force can be used to impose it if necessary (though I find that unlikely in this case), it is that same fear of the state and consequences that keeps people in line with the law. Sidetrack finished .

If a relationship is being kept together solely for the sake of the law, it is like a pressure cooker. My own parents stayed together for over eight years after the marriage had ended emotionally for the sake of my brothers and myself. That resulted in a thoroughly unhappy household in which all members suffered. The stability of relationships depend on love, they depend on respect, honesty, personality compatability etc etc (the list goes on). A couple kept together merely by the law is probably not going to be stable, the love has gone, the respect has gone, replaced by animosity. Building a family upon that basis is not a good idea and I would say that this situation is inferior for bringing up children than an stable gay marriage who wished to bring up children.

Consider this refuted. Start reading:

http://www.apa.org/pi/l&gbib.html

Good article.

I have two observations, one general one specific. Firstly women in my experience after debating this issue with a number of politics and philosophy students seem to support the proposition of gay marriage more than men. Innate male homophobia (fear of penetration) perhaps? Speculation on my part of course.

Secondly it is that this debate is taking on a very American flavour. This issue affects all Western societies, including the UK to the same degree as the USA. As a result, I would think it prudent if we did not get bogged down in USA-specific legal intricacies and keep this a largely conceptual debate.

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yeah, it's a mental problem called common sense.

Originally posted by Albert Einstein


Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

[MrFun]

It seems I was mistakened when I first heard about the event unfolding in Portland, Oregon -- it's not city-wide, but the marriage license grants are county-wide there.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

The point was that I don't want the state to recognise the union of two gay people as a 'marriage'. Since the word 'marriage' has religious conotations, I believe that should be left up to the church.

So if there is a religion that recognizes homosexuality as special to their god you'd accept that members of that religion could 'marry'?

I think this would be great. I can imagine church communities becoming one big union, so that all property and wealth were shared between them like one big happy family. They would still have religious marriages within that union and continue to be sexually monogamous etc, but would have extra rights concerning other members of the congregation. It would be like the true vision the Marx had, of 'communism' on a small scale, with no private ownership., only ownership within the union.

You commie you

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Oh dear, falls at the last hurdle. Well never mind, maybe next time.

The point was that I don't want the state to recognise the union of two gay people as a 'marriage'. Since the word 'marriage' has religious conotations, I believe that should be left up to the church. In fact I think this is why the more conservative community don't want gay 'marriages' either - clearly the accept the notion of gay people having long term relationships - they just don't want it to be considered a 'marriage'.

If you had ever bothered to read my posts, you would have noticed me advocating (way way way way back) that all state sanctioned unions be only 'civil unions' and that the ceremony of marriage should be up to individual church (or whatever) communities. All the rights, tax breaks, legal status etc would be confered by the civil union, and religious people could have a religious ceremony to sanctify it in their eyes if they wish.

As opposed to you tripping over your conservative religious views right out of the starting blocks....

You actually have a somewhat compelling arguement in your second paragraph and in what you posted "way way way way back" about government recognition. Unfortunately for you, you're also throwing about (and did way way way way way - see I added another way, it's even further back!) statements that single out gay marriage as a problem. Check out your first sentence of the second paragraph quoted above:

"I don't want the state to recognise the union of two gay people as a 'marriage'."

Why do you even bother talking about gay "marriage", then, if what you really want is for the government to not recognize any "marriage"? As I pointed out, several times now, there are Christian churches that will perform gay marriages and recognize them as such - but heaven forbid anyone else, including the government, recognize them as religious marriages!

Or are you really so obstenant about this that if you met two gay people that did get married in a Christian church, you'd say "no, you didn't get married. I refuse to accept it"?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
*SNIP*
Since the word 'marriage' has religious conotations,
*SNIP*

or Greek... or Spartan... but don't let facts get in your way, Rogan.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Unfortunately for you, you're also throwing about (and did way way way way way - see I added another way, it's even further back!) statements that single out gay marriage as a problem.

If it wasn't a problem, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Why do you even bother talking about gay "marriage", then, if what you really want is for the government to not recognize any "marriage"?

Fair enough. We were talking specifically about gay 'marriage', so I said it as "gay 'marriage'", but whatever turns you on...

As I pointed out, several times now, there are Christian churches that will perform gay marriages and recognize them as such - but heaven forbid anyone else, including the government, recognize them as religious marriages!

Or are you really so obstenant about this that if you met two gay people that did get married in a Christian church, you'd say "no, you didn't get married. I refuse to accept it"?

They can call it what they like. The point is that it wouldn't be the state who is saying 'these people are married', which I would object to. It your last sentence it would be up to the individual to make a judgement on whether or not they would regard the couple as married. But even if they didn't they would still have to respect the rights confered on the couple by the civil union.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
or Greek... or Spartan... but don't let facts get in your way, Rogan.

I didn't think the Greeks or Spartans spoke English, but there you go. Learn something new every day.