10 Reasons to Keep Gay Marriage Illegal...

[Makalakumu]

Many in this country have no problem criticizing a culture that forces women to wear bhurkas, but quail when the "intent" of that criticism is applied to every one else. One cannot argue for and against equal rights for everyone at the same time and this contradiction demands resolution. And the solution is obvious. The people who are against this are on the losing side. People will demand to be treated equally under the law and we, as a society founded in illumination, will be compelled to give it to them. Anything else is antithetical to our constitution and our nations principles.

 

[heretic888]

Was wondering when you would chime in here

What was considered liberal thought of the time would hardly be considered congruent with liberal thought of the current time. There are alot of religious controversies still. However, I doubt internal christian divisions (and you tend to pine against the christian church) are endangering the peace of society. Of course there are the rare extremist, but you find them in every faith and group. Based on the content of this thread, are you trying to imply that not allowing gay marriages will endanger the peace of society?

MrH

Actually, I was specifically addressing the issues upnorthkyosa brought up and arguing against Kane's rather weak rebuttal of what he perceives to be "liberalism".

I was trying to point out something analogous to criticism of "liberal" thought today in comparison to "liberal" thought hundreds of years ago. Many of the arguments used against gay marriage today have obvious parallels to objections to self-governance and democratic institutions over 200 years ago.

As for my "pining" against the so-called "Christian Church", I've made my position on a number of issues pretty clear. I've also made it pretty clear that I personally draw inspiration from a number of "Christian" saints and mystics (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Meister Eckhart, John of the Cross, Dionysius the Areopagite, Paul Tillich, Thomas Keating, Matthew Fox, etc). We can start another thread about the particulars of Christian theology and its validity, if you want.

And, yes, I consider refusing equal rights to a minority group in a democratic nation to "endanger the peace of Society". General Washington hit the nail right on the head with that one.

Laterz.

 

[Cryozombie]

This will definitely in my opinion keep both sides happy.

Oh yeah... completley neutral, completly unBIASED.

:disgust:

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Was wondering when you would chime in here Based on the content of this thread, are you trying to imply that not allowing gay marriages will endanger the peace of society?

I would concur with Heretic and say it will.

The Consititution's preamble insures domestic tranquility. Gays without marriage rights are denied property, as well as health benefits and a host of other federal, state and local benefits that we are allowed. A Gay person whose "significant other" is on his or her death bed might be denied hospital visitation rights. This is just cruel...and all this leads to hate and discontent...not to mention justifiable litigation.

Maybe we can grow up and just get over it and recognize this isn't going to turn our children Gay (there's been no explosion of homosexuality in Denmark since Gay marriage was legalized there); it isn't going to wreck the allready wrecked institution of marriage in this country (where "born again" Christians have a high divorce rates than non-Christians); and it isn't going to weaken the moral fabric of the country...something that history has shown us is impossible to preserve with legislation.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Flatlander]

Typical thing a lib likes to do, bring up something that totally doesn't relate to anything we are talking about to make his argument look good.

Actually, I was trying to point out that when you say "marriage is obviously only between a man and a woman" as a proposition, and use "because that's the way it's always been" you aren't justifying your position very well. I tried using other examples of where that logic has failed so that you might understand the relevancy.

So, rather than tossing out this garbage relating to "liberals" and your view of their argumentative tactics, why don't you at least attempt to support your view?

 

[arnisador]

What I'm trying to say is there are obvious flaws in Copernicus comparison

I agree. However, the Jackie Robinson issue is much more on-target.

Copernicus lived in a time where there was no science

No science??? I don't think so. He's credited with starting the Scientific Revolution that led the way to modern science, but there was certainly scientific knowledge and practice before him.

 

[arnisador]

Based on the content of this thread, are you trying to imply that not allowing gay marriages will endanger the peace of society?

Did disallowing women the vote endanger the peace of society? Did denying civil rights based on skin color endanger the peace of society? Did the lack of accessibility of buildings for the handicapped endanger the peace of society?

I think disenfranchising a group based on characteristics that are not a matter of choice is the issue. Do these things endanger the peace of society? I'm not sure I know what that means. I could be perfectly peaceful with women not being able to vote. Baseball without Willie Mays and Hank Aaron would've bothered me, though.

 

[heretic888]

I would concur with Heretic and say it will.

The Consititution's preamble insures domestic tranquility. Gays without marriage rights are denied property, as well as health benefits and a host of other federal, state and local benefits that we are allowed. A Gay person whose "significant other" is on his or her death bed might be denied hospital visitation rights. This is just cruel...and all this leads to hate and discontent...not to mention justifiable litigation.

Maybe we can grow up and just get over it and recognize this isn't going to turn our children Gay (there's been no explosion of homosexuality in Denmark since Gay marriage was legalized there); it isn't going to wreck the allready wrecked institution of marriage in this country (where "born again" Christians have a high divorce rates than non-Christians); and it isn't going to weaken the moral fabric of the country...something that history has shown us is impossible to preserve with legislation.


Regards,


Steve

Agreed. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

I think disenfranchising a group based on characteristics that are not a matter of choice is the issue. Do these things endanger the peace of society? I'm not sure I know what that means.

In the context I am using it, basically this refers to the fact the discriminated groups (and, make no mistake, this is institutionalized discrimination) will be prone to civil unrest, turmoil, and general anger against the establishment. And rightfully so, I might add.

Everyone just imagine for a second --- just try to imagine! --- imagine if the situation were turned around. What if, by some weird twist of fate, heterosexuals were the minority group?? What if heterosexuals were barred across the nation from marrying?? What if heterosexuals were restricted form enjoying the same legal rights and benefits that homosexual couples in this scenario took for granted??

Wouldn't you be outraged?? Wouldn't you be indignant?? Wouldn't you demand equality and a fair distribution of legal rights?? What right does anyone have to deny you equal legal benefits solely on the basis of your sexual preference??

Imagine yourself in the other's situation. That is the beginning of a postconventional, universal morality.

Laterz.

 

[arnisador]

Civil unrest is exactly how I'd describe the mass outbreaks of marriages we saw across the country recently. Peaceful, but still, a mild case of civil unrest.

 

[mrhnau]

I would concur with Heretic and say it will.

Really? What form do you anticipate it to take?

The Consititution's preamble insures domestic tranquility. Gays without marriage rights are denied property, as well as health benefits and a host of other federal, state and local benefits that we are allowed. A Gay person whose "significant other" is on his or her death bed might be denied hospital visitation rights. This is just cruel...and all this leads to hate and discontent...not to mention justifiable litigation.

Maybe we can grow up and just get over it and recognize this isn't going to turn our children Gay (there's been no explosion of homosexuality in Denmark since Gay marriage was legalized there); it isn't going to wreck the allready wrecked institution of marriage in this country (where "born again" Christians have a high divorce rates than non-Christians); and it isn't going to weaken the moral fabric of the country...something that history has shown us is impossible to preserve with legislation.

OK, this is a rehash of arguements I've seen on this thread already. I won't comment on them. I think alot of the problems would be resolved with the afore mentioned civili union. What I would like to see is how the moral "slippery slope" will stop. Convince me that in the next few years we will not be endorsing polymagy or child marriage. Every arguement you make can be made for any deviant form of marriage/relationship (in particular polygamy). Its not unique to your particular area of interest. Should your threat of civil unrest be sufficient to allow any particular activity you like? Do we try to please every single group to ensure domestic tranquility? How can we ever justify any law restricting anyones right to do anything? Repeal drinking age limits? Drug laws? Repeal smoking age limits? Lower/remove drivers licence age? Let anyone (felon included) buy a gun? Allow hunting of endangered species? The last two should get the liberals in a tizzy There are groups out there that would endorse all of these suggestions. Are their groups just not large enough yet to deserve your attention? Do you endorse violence by radical liberals who torch SUV's in California? Wrap trees with barbed wire so that people who cut them down are potentially killed? Should we appease them? They are passionate about their cause, actually engaging in violence and disrupting domestic tranquility. They are expressing "hate and discontent". Should we legalize what they are doing? Give them tax breaks and special privledges?

I'm not trying to divert the thread, but I'm trying to point out that simply trying to please a specific group to ensure domestic tranquility and make every group happy simply won't work. I realize that my examples are a bit extreme, but I'm trying to demonstrate the ridiculous notion of letting the "domestic tranquility" argument get out of control. Let the legal process work. Its there for a reason. Legislators have common sense. They will listen to the people if they care to keep their jobs. Over time, laws will reflect the overall feelings of the people/society. Many great things have already been accomplished. Let people who are for gay marriage have their voice. Let people who are against gay marriage have their voice. Thats what this country is all about.

The root problems in the current "moral fiber" is deeper than marriage and sexuality. Thats another topic though... Problems with the church are deeper than that too, but again, another topic.

With regard to Denmark and gay marriages, I don't care to be like most European countries. We are not Europe. Care to be like Nicaragua or parts of Africa with child marriage laws? Many muslim countries allow polygamy, should I list some? Is Europe/Denmark such a wonderful example to follow, and African countries or Islamic countries such a bad example to follow? I don't want our laws and views dictated by other countries. Citing other countries is irrelevant. We have our own unique problems here. The stats are interesting, and I'd like to see them. However, at the end of the day, we are not Europe. Let us resolve our own issues. A more relevant discussion would be the social results of the MA laws. I'd be curious to see how things work out over the next decade or so.

On a side issue... It seems liberals tend to love Europe. I wonder why. :idunno:

MrH

 

[arnisador]

I am unfamiliar with any evidence that polygamy has a strong genetic component. In that way it is unlike homosexuality.

Same for drugs, smoking, and other examples you cite--the difference is that we protect against discrimination based on factors over whihc people have no control, such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status, etc.

The exception is that we protect against discrimination based on religious persuasion, even though that is a choice!

Nothing under discussion seeks to repeal the overarching law that minors cannot generally enter into contracts. This is just a red herring. You say that citing other countries is irrelevant, and then bring up this practice which, even where it is practiced, is often illegal even if tolerated (e.g. in India).

Run your arguments backwards. Why should heterosexuals--that is, why should anyone--get a government-sanctioned marriage, with tax breaks, property rights, divorce procedures, etc.? It's basically a religious ceremony, right? Why not keep it as such and get the government out of themarriage business?

Fearmongering that gay marriage will lead to child marriage, legalized drugs, and environmental terrorists getting tax breaks is just ridiculous. At this point I am working under the assumption that you are actually for gay marriage and are waging a campaign to tar the opposition with outlandish claims.

 

[heretic888]

A few points:

1) My position is simple: something that occurs between two (or more) consenting adults --- whether biologically-based or "learned" --- and that does not violate the legal rights of anyone else is ethically outside the jurisdiction of legal prosecution. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".

2) I'm sure there is some reason to ban polygamy that doesn't rest upon imposing moral or cultural "values" on a group of people that don't necessarily subscribe to them, but I certainly haven't heard it yet.

3) The evidence for genetic contributions to homosexuality is weak, at best. Most of what I have read on the subject indicates the biological cause might be developmental in nature.

4) Regarding the example of Denmark, upnorthkyosa was drawing upon that to demonstrate that legalizing gay marriage will not necessarily result in some communal "breakdown" of "moral values" or some kind of weird pesudo-viral "outbreak" of homosexual behavior. At no point was the argument made that "gee, America should be more like Europe!".

5) Most of these calls for "moral fiber" and "cultural values" as pertaining to gay marriage often base their claims on a type of conventional-conformist morality (which has, in previous generations, opposed heliocentrism, the theory of evolution, the development of antibiotics, meteorology, womens' suffrage, civil rights, abolishment of slavery, and democracy as an institution) that is reluctant to change. If I were less forgiving I might call it xenophobia, but there is no logical reason to take it that far. Regardless, they all pertain to taking the "moral majority" and legally imposing and enforcing it upon all citizens of our nation. This hardly espouses the ideals and principles our country was founded upon.

6) I'm still wondering if those opposing equal legal rights to homosexual citizens have ever bothered to do the hypothetical scenario I outlined in my last post. What if roles were switched, and it was heterosexuality being discriminated against?? Would it still be about retaining the "moral fiber" of the nation, then??

Laterz.

 

[arnisador]

There is clearly a genetic component, but also a large developmental component. I am being somewhat lazy with terms for lack of a good way of saying "partly genetic and partly developmental within the first 5 years or so of life" (and hence not a matter of conscious choice, much like something that is purely genetic).

I don't think there's weak evidence for a genetic component--I think there's strong evidence for what may be a weak genetic component.

As to polygamy, my understanding is that the big reason for banning it is that it so often is associated with other things like incest, age of consent issues, and so on. Poverty may also be an issue.

Many prosecutable cases of domestic violence fit inside your first point; often the victim refuses to press charges and does not wish to leave the abuser, which must be reckoned as consent by any behavioural definition of the term. Yet, society benefits from prosecuting these cases, I feel. It also seems to cover assisted suicide, and while I'm OK with that, checks and balances from outside those two consenting adults are needed.

On another point, implicit in your post is the recognition that while one side says that adding gay marriage is a moral issue, the other side says that failing to do so is a moral issue. There's a great deal of symmetry here.

 

[mrhnau]

I am unfamiliar with any evidence that polygamy has a strong genetic component. In that way it is unlike homosexuality.

That would be difficult to decouple from a monogomous heterosexual. Bioinformatics at this point could probably not find it. The "gay gene" is still being studied.

Same for drugs, smoking, and other examples you cite--the difference is that we protect against discrimination based on factors over whihc people have no control, such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status, etc.

The exception is that we protect against discrimination based on religious persuasion, even though that is a choice!

We can argue that once we have proven that being homosexual is definitively proven to be purely genetic. The homosexuals I know, they have had environmental problems that may have influenced their orientation. I don't know hundreds or anything, so my anticdotes are not conclusive. I admit that.

Nothing under discussion seeks to repeal the overarching law that minors cannot generally enter into contracts. This is just a red herring. You say that citing other countries is irrelevant, and then bring up this practice which, even where it is practiced, is often illegal even if tolerated (e.g. in India).

Polygamy has been here and is here (though not highly publicized or widely practiced). I am not discussing the specific political laws that are unique to a country (laws in denmark/europe). I'm discussing human behavior that does exist. You move a polygamist from one country to another, he is still a polygamist. What -does- change is the law in the countries he occupies. Looking at countries does have its merit:

stats are interesting, and I'd like to see them. However, at the end of the day, we are not Europe. Let us resolve our own issues.

Marijuana users exist in Denmark and the US. Amsterdam has legalized marijuana, should we do the same? Thats a bit more marginal these days, so what if Amsterdam legalizes harder drugs? We have users here and there, thats a human behavior. What I -don't- want is our laws dependant on laws of other countries. Looking at the stats could prove interesting though.

Run your arguments backwards. Why should heterosexuals--that is, why should anyone--get a government-sanctioned marriage, with tax breaks, property rights, divorce procedures, etc.? It's basically a religious ceremony, right? Why not keep it as such and get the government out of themarriage business?

Good point. What we do have is 6k+ years of tradition to build on. Society has been built on the structure of marriage. Should government keep its nose out of marriage? Thats debatable... personally, I'm really big on small government hehe

Fearmongering that gay marriage will lead to child marriage, legalized drugs, and environmental terrorists getting tax breaks is just ridiculous. At this point I am working under the assumption that you are actually for gay marriage and are waging a campaign to tar the opposition with outlandish claims.

Not fear mongering. Allow me to highlight:

I'm trying to point out that simply trying to please a specific group to ensure domestic tranquility and make every group happy simply won't work. I realize that my examples are a bit extreme, but I'm trying to demonstrate the ridiculous notion of letting the "domestic tranquility" argument get out of control

The arguement that was made can be easily modified for several groups. I was not stating that gay marriage would lead to these things. I went out of this way to state this, because I realized someone was going to bring this fear mongering thing up What I -am- endorsing is letting the political process work, as I stated in my post. Civil disobedience does not mandate the just nature of a cause.

MrH

 

[arnisador]

I don't think anyone thinks there's a single "gay gene" but rather a set of genes that set the stage for homosexuality. I am convinced that there's a strong genetic component but will concede that a case for more than a mild genetic component can't yet be made. However, since the sexual of an orientation of a person is set at such a young age, the difference is irrelevant for the purposes of all but academic discussions, I think.

As to environmental problems, the psychiatric ommunity is all but unanimous that homosexuality is not a disorder. That may not be good enough for Tom Cruise, but I do think it makes a statement. There has been much study of this issue.

As to civil obedience and justness of cause--how could one have judged Martin Luther King's actions in the beginning of his civil disobedience? Gandhi's? Isn't this indeed the political process at work--citizens forcing issues to the courts, showing their legislators they really care about these things, etc.?

No one is saying that civil unrest implies rightness of cause--look at the Oklahoma City bombing, the Unabomber, etc. Civil disobedience and civil unrest in each case but no just cause, or at least none that justifies such extremism. The fact that people are agitating isn't evidence that they're right--though the numbers do say something in the case of gay marraige, I feel. But that doesn't make it right. I feel it's right because it's fair.

 

[Makalakumu]

Run your arguments backwards. Why should heterosexuals--that is, why should anyone--get a government-sanctioned marriage, with tax breaks, property rights, divorce procedures, etc.? It's basically a religious ceremony, right? Why not keep it as such and get the government out of the marriage business?

In the end, I think that this point is probably the best thing the government can do. Civil unions for people who want to enter into them. Leave marriage to the churches. When the government puts its stamp on a "type" of marriage outlined by a particular religion, that is a tacit support of that religion over others faiths. It is a crossing of the line between church and state and is, ultimately, unconstitutional. If all couples applied to the government for civil union licenses, a powerful message is being sent and it supports everything our country stands for.

 

[Makalakumu]

2) I'm sure there is some reason to ban polygamy that doesn't rest upon imposing moral or cultural "values" on a group of people that don't necessarily subscribe to them, but I certainly haven't heard it yet.

There are many people who already live "alternative" lifestyles and they harm none. I would wager that a civil union for two could just as easily be drawn up for three or more. I, too, can't see any legal issues that would cause me to oppose this. Many of the other issues that get attached to polygamy like incest, abuse, and poverty are very much like the ones that get attached to homosexuals - pedastery, devience, etc. People's opinions on both are shaped by their fears of what might occur, but this has no basis in what actually occurs. This is why its important to look at other countries as an example to inform our opinions.

 

[Andrew Green]

So...

If it is left for the churches, and they all said no.

What would stop a large group from forming a new church which defined marriage as the union of two members of the same sex?

Marriage may have origins as a religious thing, but it's moved out of that into the secular world. And it's not gonna be a viable solution to suddenly tell everyone that got married by a JP that they aren't married anymore...

Or would athiests no longer allowed to be "married" either?

Gay marriages will happen, it's just a matter of how long the battle gets drawn out. Same as interracial marriages and inter faith marriages and athiest marriages and divorces all happen now.

At the end of the day I don't see what the big deal is, Marriage is just a word. Or should we stop refering to Zeus as a God, considering that clearly defies the Christian concept of God?

Such a big fight over the use of a word... it's really kind of scary to think that the most important thing some very influential people have to do with there time is argue about whether gay couples have "marriage" or "civil union".

 

[heretic888]

A few more things:

1) As I said before, the evidence for a genetic contribution to homosexuality is, from what I have read on the subject, rather weak and inconclusive. Essentially, the data is correlative --- studies indicating a greater percentage of maternal twins share their homosexual inclinations as compared to paternal twins --- but, to my knowledge, no specific genes or groups of genes have been identified. I don't consider correlative data to be very strong evidence. If I did, I'd be a philosophical materialist.

2) I'm with upnorthkyosa on polygamy. The "guilt by association" arguments just don't do it for me.

3) Sorry, domestic abuse doesn't fit my stance. I repeat, "something that occurs between two (or more) consenting adults [...] and that does not violate the legal rights of anyone else". Physically abusing or assaulting someone certainly falls into the category of violating the legal rights of another person.

4) I have yet to hear a single "moral" argument against gay rights that doesn't ultimately rely on an Appeal To Authority, Appeal To Common Practice, or Appeal To Tradition. These are all logical fallacies.

5) Personally, I think marijuana should be legalized --- considering alcohol and tobacco, which are much more addictive and dangerous drugs, are not illegal. Plus, there's the medicinal application.

6) I have yet to see a single person on this thread argue that we should adopt any given policy because, well, that's what the cool kids in Europe are doing. To claim otherwise is to rely on a Strawman Argument. What has been argued is that the "negative consequences" that some of those that oppose gay rights have warned about have, in fact, not happened in the countries that have adopted such policies.

7) For what its worth, I'm with upnorthkyosa on the civil union policy. My personal take is similar to that of Howard Dean in which equal legal rights should be extended to all American citizens, but we shouldn't dictate to the churches who they can and cannot marry.

8) Contrary to Andrew's hypothetical speculation, not all churches in this country are opposed to gay marriage. In addition, there are gay religions and gay churches in America --- the largest, to my knowledge, being the Gay and Lesbian Catholics group.

Laterz.