Best Solution For The Homosexual Union Issue

[Bob Hubbard]

I do note, however, that the counter argument in your article, Bob, is that homosexual marriage will not, by necessity, lead to polygamy. I ask a different question. What is wrong with polygamy that is NOT wrong with homosexual union?

I don't find anything wrong with polygamy, and got nothing against group marriages, when they are properly organized (The "master and his sex slaves idea I find repulsive). For that battle to take place though, this one must first be won.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I don't find anything wrong with polygamy, and got nothing against group marriages, when they are properly organized (The "master and his sex slaves idea I find repulsive). For that battle to take place though, this one must first be won.

Or eliminate state endorsed marriage. There is nothing that stops homosexuals from living together as mated pairs. There's nothing that stops 20 people from living in a loft in an open relationship. They just want state sanction for it. I say eliminate state sanction. If a church wants to marry people 'spiritually', then they can keep marriage records. I say END special priveleges for married peoples, END THE DISCRIMINATION!

As pointed out on another forum, the Constitution, at it's core, is a document addressed to the government telling them what they CAN and CANNOT interfer with in the lives of normal citizens. I don't need government endorsement, I just need them to leave me alone.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Yes, 2 individuals can cohabitate, without church or government sanction.
They however cannot obtain those 1,400+ rights without it.
Moving into the area of polygamy or "rights for singles" is not applicable here.

The issue is, rights of a same gender couple vs rights of an opposite gender couple.

As to the question of government interference, that's a whole other, ugly discussion. (Been there.)

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yes, 2 individuals can cohabitate, without church or government sanction.
They however cannot obtain those 1,400+ rights without it.
Moving into the area of polygamy or "rights for singles" is not applicable here.

The issue is, rights of a same gender couple vs rights of an opposite gender couple.

As to the question of government interference, that's a whole other, ugly discussion. (Been there.)

Those are not 'rights', they are privileges, and as they are stated as unfair to some, lets eliminate them entirely.

So I say lets simply eliminate government endorsement, that closes the book entirely.

 

[arnisador]

My understanding is that, overwhelmingly, marriage in the sense of a social contract has been heterosexual, allowing in many cases for multiple spouses (typically, multiple wives). I don't think there are extensive examples of legalized homosexual marriage--even the Romans married women, then had affairs with men.

 

[sgtmac_46]

My understanding is that, overwhelmingly, marriage in the sense of a social contract has been heterosexual, allowing in many cases for multiple spouses (typically, multiple wives). I don't think there are extensive examples of legalized homosexual marriage--even the Romans married women, then had affairs with men.

Oh, but anthropologists (apparently) disagree...or something.

You see, in trying to define marriage over the last 100 years, anthropologists concluded that marriage is difficult, maybe even impossible to define. As a result, anything we decide marriage is...marriage is. Heretic888 made the point that we should defer to the anthropologist in this decision making process.

Of course, to arrive at the conclusion, anthropologists started with the faulty assumption that the definition of the word marriage has to be constructed around a universal definition of marriage that applies in every culture (even though we don't live in every culture), and that ANY example contrary to the predominant view is enough to contradict the standard definition. And, therefore, ANY definition of marriage are as applicable as any other.

In other words, to the view of an anthropologist, if we can find even ONE exception, anywhere, then there can be no universal definition of 'marriage'. A dubious position at best. 'We can't define it, so it can't be defined'.....

And, really, how is that ANY different than my point that the core of this argument is altering the very definition of the words themselves. That we have now concluded that the words are meaningless, and, therefore open for 'redefining' is ONLY evidence at the cleaverness of the argument in destroying the definition.

But, here's where the Gordian knot gets cut...We aren't defining marriage for ALL cultures, we're defining it for OUR culture, and it is clear how OUR culture has defined marriage. Therefore, an anthropologists statement that marriage can't be defined...anthropologically, is irrelavent, because we aren't looking for a universal definition. We are looking for a culture definition, which has been made clear.

It would be no different if an anthropologist said there were no culture or political system superior to any other. That doesn't mean that they are or are not, it merely means the methods by which anthropologists judge systems is based on a preconceived notion that a scientist should maintain 'objectivity', or, more to the point, should not make value judgements. That's fine in the research field of cultural anthropology, but that doesn't translate in the 'real world', as anthropology is research and analysis of different cultures and how they compare, objectively.

Value judgements are necessary in the real world, even if they considered an error in anthropology. The definition about what does and does not constitute marriage is a value judgement. As anthropologists are not in the business of making value judgement, that pretty much negates their decision in the matter.


What is really interesting, however, is that anthropologists tend to argue that there is no objective value system, as many different peoples hold many different moral positions. As such, it is impossible to determine a universal system of values or morals (see discussion going on a couple forums over). That's all fine and well, but then, in the vacuum created by the moral relativism, many then seek to replace the previous moral position (which they worked so hard to destroy by stating that there was no absolute moral system) with a new value system, that they claim is 'absolutely moral' (see references to universal human rights).

Now, which is it, Heretic, is there or is there not a universal value system? If there isn't, then how is NOT allowing homosexuals marriage licenses a violation of a value system that, by definition, cannot exit universally?

The Boasian influence on anthropology has been that much anthropology becomes activist in nature. Moreover, the two front assault seems to be

A) Redefine terms by stating that anthropology has proven that there is no universal values (as, the examination of various cultures show many different value systems) A statement that may be true, but then it's followed up with

B) There really is a universal value system, that we vaguely refer to under the heading 'Human Rights'. (Kind of a contradiction of the first statement, don't you think).

It's really this contradiction that confuses me. Why would we believe simultaneously that no value system is superior to another, and then fight so hard to replace one value system with another?

Ultimately, both aspects of that argument cannot be correct, as they are contradictory. Either there is no universally applicable value system, or there IS, and the arguer simply believes it's his/hers. However, both positions cannot simultaneously be true.

Ultimately I might be inclined to agree with certain conclusions addressed in this forum. However, i'm concerned when I see obvious contradictions such as illustrated above. Perhaps someone could clarify this for me.

 

[arnisador]

I can imagine using a different definition for academic study. One wants definitions that don't depend on an individual socities particularities.

But, that doesn't change the fact that those socities that have instituted such a system have almost always done it between (at least one) man and (at least one) woman.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

On the historical aspects, as well as issues, etc, try here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

This is additional information besides what I posted previously.

I found it interesting that it names Nero as 1 individual maried to men (twice)...however I haven't found reference to that outside the initial Wiki article.

 

[arnisador]

Lots of 'analogous to marriage' but not so much 'recognized by the society as equivalent to heterosexual marriage' so while I can imagine academics making their own definitions and see the value of such, I don't see evidence that socities have typically recognized the analogy (with inheritance rights, in-laws, etc.).

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Maybe, but until recently they also didn't recognize inter-racial or cross-religion relations. They also didn't recognize woman as equal, a problem still in much of the world.

The fact here is, the world is moving forward, accepting peoples differences, and granting them previously withheld rights and privileges. I for one think it's a damn shame that a nation proclaims "For Liberty and Justice For All" feels the need to lag behind and tag the words "except for those who love their own gender" to that proclamation.

Allowing or denying same-sex marriages will not have any effect on me. I haven't encountered any member of my own gender so far that stirs passion in my heart. But, I've known others who have, and for their sake, and the sake of the tens of thousands of others out there I feel compelled to lend my voice to theirs as they fight for equality. I would prefer seeing this issue resolved quickly, so that we can focus on more serious threats such as famine, poverty, and homelessness from a more unified front.

Bottom line, same gender relations deserve all the same privileges, rights and responsibilities as opposite gender relations, under the same terms, without any "separate but equal" ********. To discriminate based on sexual orientation should be illegal, and I believe to do so is a violation of the core principles this nation was founded on. "Life, Liberty & Pursuit of Happiness"
Hard to have a life when one is denied Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness has to be placed on hold so that you can move from one nest of close minded people to another.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Lots of 'analogous to marriage' but not so much 'recognized by the society as equivalent to heterosexual marriage' so while I can imagine academics making their own definitions and see the value of such, I don't see evidence that socities have typically recognized the analogy (with inheritance rights, in-laws, etc.).

Yes, i've yet to see a society that has traditionally viewed same-sex marriage as a common accepted practice. By a multi-culturalist argument, polygamy has a better claim to legitimization than homosexual marriage.


I really don't care either way, but i'm real interested in seeing a good argument presented as to what makes homosexual marriage important in contrast to these other issues.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Try Spain, or Canada.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Maybe, but until recently they also didn't recognize inter-racial or cross-religion relations. They also didn't recognize woman as equal, a problem still in much of the world.

But from an anthropological position, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those issues you've named. They are considered valid by far more cultures than consider them wrong.

The fact here is, the world is moving forward, accepting peoples differences, and granting them previously withheld rights and privileges. I for one think it's a damn shame that a nation proclaims "For Liberty and Justice For All" feels the need to lag behind and tag the words "except for those who love their own gender" to that proclamation.

Who's to say that's moving forward. Other cultures might consider it 'moving backwards', or in the wrong direction. In fact, an argument has been made that societies don't 'move forward' at all. That progress is really an illusion, do you disagree?

Allowing or denying same-sex marriages will not have any effect on me. I haven't encountered any member of my own gender so far that stirs passion in my heart. But, I've known others who have, and for their sake, and the sake of the tens of thousands of others out there I feel compelled to lend my voice to theirs as they fight for equality. I would prefer seeing this issue resolved quickly, so that we can focus on more serious threats such as famine, poverty, and homelessness from a more unified front.

Perhaps, perhaps not, that case has yet to be entirely made.

Bottom line, same gender relations deserve all the same privileges, rights and responsibilities as opposite gender relations, under the same terms, without any "separate but equal" ********. To discriminate based on sexual orientation should be illegal, and I believe to do so is a violation of the core principles this nation was founded on. "Life, Liberty & Pursuit of Happiness"
Hard to have a life when one is denied Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness has to be placed on hold so that you can move from one nest of close minded people to another.

Oh, that's a misunderstanding of 'rights'. Rights as defined by the Constitution, prevent the government from interferring with your life and activity. That's what "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" mean. It doesn't mean the government is going to HELP you be happy, it means they shouldn't interfer. It's also not a guarantee OF happiness, merely the right to pursue. As far as that is concerned, simply not interferring is protection of rights enough.

I think it's a common fallacy today that every person has a right to have the government do something FOR them. It's enough to have the government stay out of the way as much as possible.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Try Spain, or Canada.

Those are recent innovations in western culture, recent as in less than decades, just a few years. They certainly aren't indicative of the vast cultures across history.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

But from an anthropological position, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those issues you've named. They are considered valid by far more cultures than consider them wrong.

And both slavery and women-as-property were also considered acceptable by many cultures. Still is in some areas. Doesn't make it right for a nation that prides it self on freedom and equality.

Who's to say that's moving forward. Other cultures might consider it 'moving backwards', or in the wrong direction. In fact, an argument has been made that societies don't 'move forward' at all. That progress is really an illusion, do you disagree?

I've always founf that reality, especially before lunchtime to be an illusion. Those folks who have to be up at 6am to drive 2 hours to work each day, tend to disagree.

Oh, that's a misunderstanding of 'rights'. Rights as defined by the Constitution, prevent the government from interferring with your life and activity. That's what "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" mean. It doesn't mean the government is going to HELP you be happy, it means they shouldn't interfer. It's also not a guarantee OF happiness, merely the right to pursue. As far as that is concerned, simply not interferring is protection of rights enough.

You're right, it's not a guarantee OF happyness, just the right to pursue it. However, these discriminatory actions done by federal and state officials are direct interference of that right to pursue.

I think it's a common fallacy today that every person has a right to have the government do something FOR them. It's enough to have the government stay out of the way as much as possible.

• If the government hadn't gotten involved, we might have a Confederacy as a southern neighbor.
• If government hadn't gotten involved, those freed slaves might still not be allowed to marry, or vote, or hold office.
• If government hadn't gotten involved, women might still be restricted to "barefoot and pregnant".
• If government hadn't gotten involved, 5 year olds might still be working on coal mines.
• If government hadn't gotten involved, there might still be sawdust and worse in your food.
• If government hadn't gotten involved, many of those 1,400 rights and privilages allowed OGC wouldn't be in there.
• If governemtn hadn't gotten involved, there would still be "whites only" signs across the "bible belt".

As much as I don't like the amount of government involvement in our lives, sometimes, it is necessary in order to do what must be done, even if it's unpopular. It's simple really. Extend the coverage nation wide to -2- people at the federal level, allow for civil ceremonies, and let the religions work out their positions on their own.

 

[sgtmac_46]

And both slavery and women-as-property were also considered acceptable by many cultures. Still is in some areas. Doesn't make it right for a nation that prides it self on freedom and equality.

I'm merely pointing out that there is no objective standard of right and wrong, most especially if we leave this notion up to anthropological standards of value. If any cultural value is valid, then every cultural value is valid. By what criteria am I to decide what is right and wrong?

I've always founf that reality, especially before lunchtime to be an illusion. Those folks who have to be up at 6am to drive 2 hours to work each day, tend to disagree.

Who's right, you or them?

You're right, it's not a guarantee OF happyness, just the right to pursue it. However, these discriminatory actions done by federal and state officials are direct interference of that right to pursue.

Would homosexuals be LESS happy if the government did not endorse marriage at all? If not, then the source of the unhappiness is not derived from the government, and anything it HAS done, but merely from the perception of being slighted. In other words, the government has provided a privilege for one child, and another child feels it's unfair, so THEY want the privilege to. There is no act that actually impedes the pursuit of happiness, except in the mind of the allegedly slighted child. That government ever got in the privilege giving business in the first place is the mistake.

What's more, how are you right to impose your ethical standards on me? Those from one state have no right to impose their political and moral views on those from another.

The courts in the US have decided that mere discrepency between groups alone is not enough to be concidered descrimination. For example, several law suits have questioned certain child support payments based on equal protection. Specifically, they question forcing fathers to pay child support beyond the child's 18th year, if that child is enrolled in college. Moreover, those child support payments can be enforced until the child is 22.

Basically, the argument goes, that this violates a divorced parents equal protection under the law, as he is forced by the government to do what no married person is forced to do, and that is pay money for his child beyond their 18th birthday. Now, as this is an act that government IS actively performing, the conclusion of the court certainly applies to acts of omission by the government.

The courts have decided in those cases that the government IS allowed to single out divorced parents for child support, and that the simple act of treating them to a different standard, alone, does not meet a charge of violation of equal protection.

• If the government hadn't gotten involved, we might have a Confederacy as a southern neighbor.

Was it right to impose our northern ideals through war and aggression against another people with a different position? How is aggression the solution to a social problem?

• If government hadn't gotten involved, those freed slaves might still not be allowed to marry, or vote, or hold office.

Again, no culture is any superior to any other culture.

• If government hadn't gotten involved, women might still be restricted to "barefoot and pregnant".

Who says that makes culture 'better', if there is a such thing as one culture being better than any other.

Moreover, the above listed are a bit of an appeal to emotion, by claiming that not allowing homosexual marriage is on par with slavery, for example.

As much as I don't like the amount of government involvement in our lives, sometimes, it is necessary in order to do what must be done, even if it's unpopular. It's simple really. Extend the coverage nation wide to -2- people at the federal level, allow for civil ceremonies, and let the religions work out their positions on their own.

Yet you haven't made the case why that is a universal civil right, or why it should be restricted to just 2 people. What's so magic about the number 2? Historically, 3 or more has been just as acceptable as 2 homosexuals? Why this discrimination based on the number 2?

 

[Kane]

Heh heh, I think Bob is trying to use the universal liberal argument for all issues. Bringing up issues such as race to further push an agenda that has nothing to do with race.

sgtmac_46 asked an interesting question which is basicly the whole idea of this thread: "Would homosexuals be LESS happy if the government did not endorse marriage at all?"

Another interesting question to add to that is;

"Would heterosexuals be LESS happy if the government did not endorse marriage at all?"

Perhaps both sides will be equally pissed and happy at the idea. Either way you look at it, one side is no happier or sadder than the other. How is that not equality? How does that not fair? If marriage is such a reletive term why does the government have to take a stance on it?

Bob said;

"Extend the coverage nation wide to -2- people at the federal level, allow for civil ceremonies, and let the religions work out their positions on their own."

Fine let's let two people have a federal or civil union. Do we have to call it marriage? Is that so important to you?

I think most of our nation is ready for compromise. Either the seperate but equal union solution or the solution I am proposing (take the word marriage out of government). But some people just want it their way and their way only.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Heh heh, I think Bob is trying to use the universal liberal argument for all issues. Bringing up issues such as race to further push an agenda that has nothing to do with race.

sgtmac_46 asked an interesting question which is basicly the whole idea of this thread: "Would homosexuals be LESS happy if the government did not endorse marriage at all?"

Another interesting question to add to that is;

"Would heterosexuals be LESS happy if the government did not endorse marriage at all?"

Perhaps both sides will be equally pissed and happy at the idea. Either way you look at it, one side is no happier or sadder than the other. How is that not equality? How does that not fair? If marriage is such a reletive term why does the government have to take a stance on it?

Bob said;

"Extend the coverage nation wide to -2- people at the federal level, allow for civil ceremonies, and let the religions work out their positions on their own."

Fine let's let two people have a federal or civil union. Do we have to call it marriage? Is that so important to you?

I think most of our nation is ready for compromise. Either the seperate but equal union solution or the solution I am proposing (take the word marriage out of government). But some people just want it their way and their way only.

You know, in all honesty, i've been having a lot of fun with this debate. It seems that both sides have some rather disingenuous arguments of why they support their position. Personally, I have no real issue with allowing homosexuals to apply for and be granted a marriage license. As a general rule, I don't think it hurts anything if they can have a ceremony and call a union marriage.

The problem is that I just haven't gotten a clear, HONEST, answer about why it's so important that it be called marriage. Usually, what i've gotten is something along the lines of 'it's about CIVIL rights' and then either Hitler or Slavery is invoked, and some grandiose argument about how western civilization will JUST end if we don't have same-sex marriage, or the insinuation that it will simply return us to the Jim Crowe era, or that '10,000 rights are being violated' by not allowing a same-sex couple to marry. Seems a little melodramatic.

Can't we just be clear. We want to call it marriage because we think that calling it marriage will give it legitimacy and will force the portion of society that doesn't agree with homosexuality to accept it? What we're really talking about here is altering people's prejudicies and beliefs through litigation. Is that so hard to admit to? :asian:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The waters continue to muddy, and non-important-to-the-argument issued brought in.

I gave past examples of past "accepted practices" that were overturned by government action, that is all.

It's 2 people because it's primarily 2 entities throughout nature. Nature BTW that has homosexual relations throughout the animal kingdom, humans being just another animal. Larger groups are also "normal" and will most likely someday have their own day in the spotlight. That battle is not this battle.

The idea of suddenly dropping all government sanctioning of marriage is ludicris. It will never happen.

As to much of the rest, it's not applicable (though Sarge, if you want my opinion on the War of Northern Aggression, do a search here. I've gone over that before)

We want to call it marriage because that is what it is. Ya obviously missed my earlier post.

Why shouldn't same gender relationships be allowed?
Why shouldn't they be given the same rights and called the same thing as OGR?

I still haven't seen any strong arguments.
I see:
- I'm single, why give them special rights?
- Call it something else but give them the same privileges.
- It's wrong because "God" said so.
- etc.

Why should it be called marriage?
Because there are years and years of work that went into building the rights, responsibilities and privileges surrounding it. Calling it something else will only confuse people, and create a nice cash cow for lawyers as thousands of court cases are refought to obtain these benefits again, when simply extending the coverage would avoid the confusion and heartache.

Sarge,
If your girlfriend is hospitalized, you stand a good chance even if you have papers not being allowed in. Married couples have the following rights:
* Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
* Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

If she is the victim of crime, you're SOL unless married. Married couples can receive crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.

If the worse should happen, even with proper papers you may not be able to Making burial or other final arrangements. You will not receive numerous estate and death benefits. Like, keeping the house if it's in her name.

Same gender couples have been evicted, separated from children, been denied health and life insurance, lost property, etc when their partner died. There are no provisions. Partners family hates you, you're screwed. It's that simple.

The plain and simple fact is, separate but equal is not right. Creating a new term for the same thing is pointless and only serves to satisfy a small portion of the bigots. Stripping the rights from millions to satisfy a wish to continue to discriminate against thousands is flat out wrong, especially when used to complain about the lack of certain benefits for singles. People do not plan "partnerships", they don't buy books on "unions", they don't dream of someday "cohabitating". They plan Weddings, and dream of Marriage.

They should have the opportunity to pursue that dream, not have it blocked by a small group of bigots.

 

[arnisador]

You know, in all honesty, i've been having a lot of fun with this debate. It seems that both sides have some rather disingenuous arguments of why they support their position. Personally, I have no real issue with allowing homosexuals to apply for and be granted a marriage license. As a general rule, I don't think it hurts anything if they can have a ceremony and call a union marriage.

The problem is that I just haven't gotten a clear, HONEST, answer about why it's so important that it be called marriage.

The word itself implies something to people. Calling it something else will be seen as a pejorative; a civil union is seen as 'merely' a civil union, not the full equivalent of marriage. There are social rights as well as legal rights; something as simple as being invited to events together because one is a recognized couple.

Asking for marriage means asking for all of it--the good, the bad, and the ugly. A civil union is just a registration at city hall; a marriage creates a family. There's just too much wrapped up in it.

Would you rather say to your parents "This is my husband" or "This is the man with whom I have a civil union"? The first statement has greater strength, greater impact; it bespeaks a fuller commitment and demands greater recognition and respect.