Gay Marriage

Remove all ads!

RuneQuester,
This perception is underlined by polls about xenophobia which stated that the less contact with foreigners there is in a population, the resentment to foreigners is more prevalent. Just a point.

 

Wait a moment. Calling homosexualism deviation is not OK. But calling opposition to gay marriage homophobia is OK? Look, -phobia suggests a medical condition. Do you actually have a shade of proof or have you, or other champions of gay rights, conceived the idea in your own head(s)?

Seems thatLaw of Tolerance is being applied.

The Law of Religion:

If X follows religion Y and X says Z, X says Z because of following religion Y.

Nice fallacy.

Personal feelings changing moral qualification of actions? Perhaps with week-willed and weak-minded people. Although, as a rule, if you consider a pattern of behaviour wrong, you don't hunger for contact with a group exhibiting that pattern of behaviour. It's logical. Not like there's a causational relation the other way round.

A good thing. Why would they necessarily have to violate you? Aren't you going by stereotypes or something? No one suggested such a possibility.

One more time, I have to protest against attributing that premise and that false equation to me. Technically, that argument is a fallacy, if it refers to me, or anyone opposing gay marriage here in this thread.

The closest there is my claiming that homosexuality is a deviation and allowing homosexual marriage will give free way for other deviations, such as paedophiles who have already started their own campaign.

I was not. And I'm not a racist. See more below. Yes, a quote from my own post, two pages ago:

I do realise it's a matter of time that you find arguments to question the above on random grounds.

Hell, no! The only thing they should think about twice is if they really want to try and jump over the gap, joining two families from largely different worlds. The children will potentially be mixbreeds and not fully accepted in either culture. That's why they should be serious and careful at what they're doing, for the sake of cruel reality.

Biologically speaking, gender difference is not the same as skin pigment difference and similar cosmetic details not meriting a separate sub-species even.

Above. Nice fallacy, still. If I weren't a veteran, those would work

 

There is nothing wrong with gays or gay marriage imo but the only thing that is not right is gay couples being allowed to adopt children and so.

 

@chev – I was reluctant to get back into this debate because it had been going nowhere for quite some time until Iago and Laches posted something that was quite interesting, so I was responding to that. At the risk of getting back into something that appears again to be going nowhere, let me just say this, and then I will bow out:

My comment on homophobia was addressing the different attitudes of males vs. females. Encarta Online defines phobia as “an irrational or very powerful fear and dislike of something”. Again, in my experience, males are generally more inclined to see gays as being somewhat threatening, and I would call that irrational since, unless gays are trying to get these “straight” males to have sex with them, there is IMO no reason for this attitude. In the cases I am referring to, the attitudes have absolutely nothing to do with religious beliefs or anything else that could be argued is “rational”; it’s just a general prejudice against gays that is no different than a prejudice based on race. It has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuality can be called a "deviation", or whether it is someting else. And again, I am just talking about the difference in attitudes of males as opposed to females; I am not interested in re-re-rehashing the “deviation or not” debate, which got tiresome (to me, at least) about two pages back.

[ January 23, 2004, 18:05: Message edited by: Splunge ]

 

Come on now Chev, you've been complaining about straw men and then prop up your own to knock down. I said that the statistics seem to indicate that there is a tie between the public's religious persuasion and their view on gay marriage. Where is that incorrect?

Correlation does not equal causation. However, when roughly 85% of one type of religion believe gay marriage is wrong vs. roughly 35% of "non-religious" folks, to deny there looks like a tie between religious belief and belief about the appropriateness of gay marriage is mere denial of the most severe kind.

Note that people basing their opposition to gay marriage on religious grounds doesn't make them wrong - but it is silly to deny there appears to be a tie with regards to the public at large.

 

This question is directed to the lawyers amongst us.

Hypothetically, lets say the gay community banded together and created an alternative religion based in principle upon Christianity. As a tenet of their religion, marriage was not only allowed but monogamous and enduring unions between two individuals in love was encouraged, much as in most major religions. If their numbers were large enough to be considered a major faith of America, couldn't they sue the federal government for enforcement of their freedom of religion clause?

Sorry if this issue has been raised already, but I did not have time to read all 144 posts.

 

1) I never said that calling homosexuality(-ism??) a deviation was not okay. I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it...

2) Words shift meaning with context and usage(becoming my mantra). "Homophobia" is such a word that is slightly different in meaning than similar sounding words(eg. arachnophobia) in that it not only covers the subconcious or concious fear & distrust of homosexuals that many have, but also the displayed attitudes and actions of the fearful. It is every bit as difficult to overcome, I think, as acrophobia and arachniphobia.
There is nothing inherently insulting about being labeled as a homophobic, in the sense that you do exhibit a fear/paranoia (of their kind "spreading" so to speak) but I can see how you might object to the unspoken charge of behaving in an irrational manner towards homosexuals.

Not in this case...necessarily anyway. It may be in the sense that it CAN be treated(just as arachnophobia) unless some other factor(eg. religious affiliation) prevents one from seeking such.

Which brings me to something else you said earlier. In another post you claimed that the gay rights movement was something of a sham because there was no "heterosexual rights" movement or activists.
This is a fallacious argument because it presumes both hetero's and homo's to be on equal footing and where one side has a "rights movement" the other is unfairly denied such. This is like saying "Why did you put a sunroof in you VW but not in your convertible? Do you not appreciate your convertible?"
Hetero' rights are not being infringed upon by gays or anyone else. Hetero's are allowed(even encouraged) to marry and enjoy all sorts of perks that gays do not and without any compelling reason why this should be so.

Nice strawman.

Another cart and horse reverse argument. If growing up in an evironment which discouraged affiliating with gays(or blacks or Chinese etc.) led you to harbor such phobias as an adult then you cannot pull the "maybe I just don't seek out contact with them" rebuttal.
Also, we are not talking about any "pattern of behavior" as it is implied here. There is nothing inherently immoral(in the sense that it is infringing upon someone else's right to live as s/he sees fit) in two men or women doing whatever they do in their own bedrooms. Your use of "pattern of behavior" implies some negligent/reckless behavior or a decision to somehow force their ways onto you.

???

The danger of taking quotes out of context and then trying to respond to them as such is that you end up doing what you have done here and responding to a strawman or nonsensical and irrelevant point.
Go back and read the entire quote in the original post inlcuding relevant portions preceding and following said quote.

I shouldn't have to tell YOU that Chev'. You are making a lot of logical blunders in this thread.

Where did I do such a thing? I think it was pretty well obvious that I was discussing the opposition to gay rights in general terms, not YOUR specific mindset. I have no idea if you opposed interracial dating or even what race you might be but your arguments here are only seeming to confirm your position as not being terribly different than the opposition to gay rights in general.

It was an observation and not really an argument aimed at any one here. Methinks you protest too much.

Thanks for the further confirmation of the point above. What is that quote about it being better to keep silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt...?
The slippery slope arguemnt is also a logical fallacy. It is like opposing the teaching of interior design at a school because it will "turn everyone gay". There is no correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia(in fact almost all child molestors are heterosexual).

I never called you a racist. I compared the arguments against interracial dating(now largely considered laughable even by conservative standards) and those against gay marriage and found striking similarities. Even your own specific arguments here are VERY similar to those who oppose interracial coupling.

That is nice and all and I'm glad you have such a background which makes you less apt to take an adversarial stance against asians and such...but what does that have to do with your opposition to gays?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not sure what you are getting at here. If they love each other they should stop and consider how racists will feel befoire embarking on their romance? I would agree that thought should be given for purposes of preparation for eventuallities but in no way should this affect their decision to have a family itself!

Not really. All of my siblings are accepted by MOST whites and all blacks thus far. The only ones who do NOT accept them are, ironically enough, extremist conservatives and christians.

If that were true then "cruel reality" should remain statically so indefinitely.

[/quote]Biologically speaking, gender difference is not the same as skin pigment difference and similar cosmetic details not meriting a separate sub-species even.[/quote]

A minority is a minority and equal rights should be so for ALL peoples. Those who are discernable by their pigmentation/physical features are at a disadvantage in the fight when compared to, say, atheists or gays of course. People who think Hawaiian shirts look cool are offensive to ME but I would not seek to bar them from using the sidewalks or getting married.

Yeah...

 

This isn't really getting ugly, it has been fairly ugly for a bit now. I will say that linking religious views with belief regarding the current argument can be, depending on how used, a subtle sort of ad hominem (I figured since everyone else is throwing around fallacies and the like...).

That's why I tried to say that just because someone believes what they believe because of their religion, it does not make him or her wrong. However, that doesn't mean that the source of the belief isn't interesting.

From above:

I think this has been the crux of the entire debate - and RuneQuester sort of begs the question in the above quote. (I don't think it needs to be the crux of the debate though, as I'll say below). Presumabley, Grey or Chev would say - 'yes, there is something inherently immoral.' I believe Grey came straight out and said he believed this. Others say, there is nothing immoral about gay marriage.

Those who say gay marriage isn't immoral seem to be saying - "it doesn't hurt anyone." Grey at least, when saying we shouldn't have gay marriage, says "yes it does. It hurts 'marriagness' or the institution of marriage or something..." I've given Grey short shrift because I don't personally understand that argument but, suffice it to say, Grey and, I think, Chev are arguing gay marriage does hurt other couples marriages.

To me, I don't understand how. For me, the harm is entirely too obscure and remote to constitute direct harm. And, lacking direct harm, I wouldn't make it illegal.

Also though, one might say, 'It is immoral because [insert various religious reasons here]'. I think I recall this being alluded to earlier. This seems to be how the many people I have met think. Dismissing this out of hand as, 'oh, it's a relgious nut' is ad hominem and, I can see, insulting. And I say that as a weak atheist and strong agnostic.

However, here is another question from me: Suppose gay marriage is immoral (and I don't think it is) - so what? We let people do lots of things many people consider immoral. Gambling away their entire life. Drinking themselves into a stupor every night. Sleeping with prostitutes (in some areas).

Even if gay marriage is immoral, unless it does some type of direct harm (and when I say direct harm I mean direct and tangible) why should it be illegal? Isn't there a danger in deciding to make all laws reflect morality, particularly where the consensus regarding what is and is not moral seems to be so lacking?

 

Late-Night Thinker:

Uh...you don't need to be hypothetical. Substitute "polygamy" for "homosexual marriage", and Mormonism moved almost exactly along these lines in its early years. The government persecuted the Mormon community 'til it sacrificed its polygamy doctrine. 'Course, it would be morally judgemental of me to suggest that loving, consensual polygamy is wrong, so I'll hold my tongue.

Oh, and before I get censored again...I'm not Mormon-bashing here, really...just presenting a historical American parallel. Wouldn't it be ironic if, in the wake of Lawrence vs. Texas and its inevitable follow-ons, that not merely homosexual marriage was permitted, but also religiously-respectable polygamy? There are a lot more Mormons than homosexuals in America, and they're much more "mainstream".

 

Hey, I meant to reply to that too Grey.

For the record, I think if someone wants to marry more than one person - they should knock themselves out. I think if the Mormons want to marry a dozen of each other - go for it. One issue with Mormonism wasn't just the multiple partners though, it was also the partners below the age of consent which is a separate issue.


@LNT - there isn't a 'freedom of religion' clause. There are actually two religious clauses - the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

Neither of these clauses would permit gay marriage in my opinion. Here is how it would go down - and I'll let you in on a dirty little secret (one some may disagree with me on).

A constitutional right can be overcome. In the hypothetical you came up with, the free exercise clause would be implicated in my opinion. This is considered a fundamental right. The gov't may act in a way (via legislation, regulation, etc) that abridges a fundamental right if certain conditions are met. A test is applied, and for a fundamental right that test is called 'strict scrutiny.' In order for a government action to pass constitutional muster in this situation, there must be a compelling governmental interest AND the legislation/regulation/whatever must be narrowly tailored to effectuate that interest.

Now, here is the dirty secret: judges are people. Often, many of them, know the result they want and then figure out a way to get there. I suspect that given the historic attitudes toward homosexuality, a compelling governmental interest would be found and they'd say the legislation was narrowly tailored.

This has happened before. Grey beat me to the punch. Another example is that some Native tribes used peyote in their religious rituals (which extend WAAAY back) and the interest behind drug laws was considered sufficiently compelling to tell some Native Americans they weren't allowed to smoke peyote in their religious ceremonies once every month or so.

From a legal standpoint, I think it's crazy to tell a Native American he can't smoke peyote in a ritual that is at least centuries old. But, that's the way it went down. Given that, gay marriage wouldn't stand a chance under that theory.

Edit - I think I'll pm dmc so he can see if he agrees with my analysis which is off the cuff.

 

@ Grey

Actually, no. I have to point out that polygamy was phased out by the mormon church long before it was declared illegal by the state of Utah, and any mormons who currently practice polygamy do so far outside the fold of the mormon mainstream. They live and practice in exiled communities, and aren't really considered "mormons" anymore by the whole of the church because they practice a predecated version of the faith.

The idea that all mormons practice, endorse and even tolerate polygamy is a long-standing stereotype, but isn't factually accurate.

Furthermore, the question of whether or not religiously condoned polygamy, especially with reference to Mormons, has more to do with the immorality of arranging and marrying off girls to be wed in their pre-teens (which is more common than not), even within the same bloodlines, which is a big part of where the controversy comes from.

Just thought I'd point that out, before yet another distinction is introduced that further clouds the issue.

 

My very first argument wasn't about homosexuality per se, but about improperly expanding an institution's definition and boundaries. Why should we grace a homosexual relationship with the term "marriage"? Seems to me it's merely a matter of coincidence, as if marriage is merely "any committed, formalized monogamous relationship that involves some kind of sex". Well, since homosexuals can have committed sex, isn't that enough to call it a marriage?

Here's an analogy. Why don't we call Exxon-Mobil a state? Exxon-Mobil has a higher annual revenue than many states. It has more security guards, a larger naval and air fleet, more technology, more territory (all those oil wells!), and more people than your run-of-the-mill African country. So why does East Timor get a vote in the UN and not Exxon-Mobil? Doesn't sprawling Exxon-Mobil have more need of a UN vote than li'l East Timor? Couldn't Exxon-Mobil benefit from the legal perks of statehood?

But deep down, East Timor is a state and Exxon-Mobil is a corporation. If we start calling corporations states and states corporations, the result corrupts both the states and the corporations.

I think that's the real argument about homosexual marriage. Why this insistence upon calling the relationship "marriage"? I can't prove that it would cause direct social harm, any more than any sociologist could "prove" in the '50s that easy divorce would cause social harm. But I think there's a strong argument to be made that we're playing with fire if we hijack the institution of marriage to bless homosexual relationships.

 

Grey -

And this may have been asked - has it been boiled down to a question of semantics? Would you find it acceptable to allow gay unions which grant identical rights to what straight couples are allowed via marriage?

If the answer is yes, then I think Andrew Sullivan gives the reason why some think this, while wonderful and yes he'd take it, isn't quite enough.

 

Here's another analogy. Why don't we call Mr. Ed a human? Mr. Ed has a higher income than most humans. He has more security guards, a larger fan base, more friends, more territory (all those stables!), and more affluance than your run-of-the-mill human being. So why does Wilbur get government benefits and not Mr. Ed? Doesn't Mr. Ed have more need of a vote than li'l Wilbur? Couldn't Mr. Ed benefit from the legal perks of marrying a human?

But deep down, Wilbur is a human and Mr. Ed is a f*cking horse. If we start calling people horses and horses states, the result corrupts both the humans and the horses.

---

Friends don't let friends use bad analogies.

 

Well, I think that's the root of the problem. You say there is one institution and one defintion of it. There is actually only one reason I can think of, why someone would claim this. Religion. The problem with it, there is no basis for forcing a religious defintion on a social institution. Well, once this was possible, as churches gained enough momentum at the end of the middle-ages to push their defintion through as law. And as before stated, that's why the German name for marriage originally means the "right one", comming from the fact that it replaced the other variants, like good old traditional polygamy. Or maybe even better translated into modern terminology "the political correct one". Anyway the christian version wasn't the frist kind of marriage and surely not the only one.

The problem obviously is, that the concept of marriage according to one beliefs maybe has certain shape and definition and this then maybe is viewed as "must be universal". And the only kind of danger I see that would come from a "gay-marriage" is, that it would question the universality of the definition and the underlying thought, that when it is taught in a church it must have merits to have this defintion and not another one. Other ones could be dangerous, there are surely sinful as polygamy would be.

Solution, call it neither "gay" nor "marriage", then no religion has the feeling that a monopolized term, however doubtful the claim to have a monopoly is, has been stolen and "abused".

 

And I'd add one more thing to what dmc wrote - in the US, under the equal protection clause, certain classes have received different degrees of protection. Minority races, for example, are treated as a 'suspect class' and thus laws which discriminate on the basis of race are subject to strict scrutiny; this is the most difficulty scrutiny to overcome - compelling interest/narrowly tailored like explained above. Strict scrutiny also applies to laws impacting groups on the basis of religion and national origin. There may be others but that's off the top of my head. As mentioned above, this scrutiny is used when a fundamental right is impacted.

Laws which discriminate on the basis of gender are not subject to strict scrutiny - they are subject to something called, well various things but often intermediate scrutiny. If a law is to hold up when analyzed using an intemediate test, it must be substantially related to an important governmental interest.

A third level of constitutional scrutiny is 'rational basis.' In order to overcome this level of scrutiny the state must show that a law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. This level of scrutiny is used when laws impact any other group such as gays. Now, there is some suggestion in some case law that when laws impact on gays and the mentally impaired that while the rational basis standard is applied, it is applied a bit more stringently than it would be with a law that impacts, say, the homeless.

Now, with regards to gay marriage and the above hypothetical, LNT was imagining a challenge to the laws based on the First Amendment right. Under the 14th amendment, the lowest form of scrutiny, rational basis, would be used rather than strict scrutiny. Either way, an appeal that ends up in SCOTUS won't help gays at this point in time in my opinion.

Some argue that discrimination against gays should be scrutinized more closely - either intermediate scrutiny under the theory that it is discrimination based on gender or actually strict scrutiny as a suspect class. But, this isn't the way it currently works.

In my opinion, there is not a rational reason to discriminate against gays in the context of marriage but I think most of the federal courts would disagree (but as dmc points out, you may win in certain jurisdictions - but not with SCOTUS).

However, note that a state's constitutions and laws may grant MORE protection than the US constituion - it just can't offer LESS. So, a state court might find that the state constitution guarantees gays the right to marry.

[ January 24, 2004, 02:19: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

I really should be playing ToEE...

Laches wrote:

..."identical rights"? In that case, the semantics conceal the substance. What's to stop us from making a one-night-stand tax-deductible? Or giving polygamous groupings their child-tax credits? Or a sales-tax rebate for prostitutes?

I think we're making a fundamental mistake here. A heterosexual relationship involves sex, and a homosexual relationship involves sex...and marriage sanctions (legally and morally) the heterosexual relationship, so therefore (logically) marriage would sanction a homosexual relationship, too. Or that's the leap we're making (assuming the sexual element, since we aren't arguing that random strangers could marry platonically for green cards, for instance).

But marriage is about a very particular kind of sexual relationship. It doesn't apply to adultery, or rape, or prostitution, or incest, or casual affairs, or drunken blind dates. We seem to be latching onto the one kind of justification for one kind of sex and assuming that, a'course, it should apply to other kinds, too. But just as marrying your sibling doesn't justify incest, neither does "marrying" someone of the same gender.

As Iago writes:

Yes, I do think that's the root of the problem. I'm claiming that institutions are not as infinitely interchangeable or as perfectly plastic as public opinion pretends. And I'm claiming that, given the broad sweep of the past several MILLENNIA, it's the notion of homosexual marriage that is, ironically, "forcing an [ir]religious definition on a social institution."

Or maybe Death Rabbit is right and this is all just a bad analogy. Kinda like the similar "bad analogy" from Lincoln's 1838 Lyceum speech.

 

Clearly Grey has absolutely no idea what he is talking about - he should be playing NWN.

So, and I don't know why I get to ask all the questions - because I'm the boss I guess, do gay couples get any rights by virtue of their being a couple? Hospital visitation rights? Rights to inherit property via intestate laws? Should gay couples have the right to medical decisions for a long term incpacitated partner? Should gay couples have the right to make burial arrangements for the death of a long term spouse? Should a gay couple be allowed to live in an area zoned family if they find a person willing to sell to them? Should gay people be able to receive domestic violence protection orders if things go bad? Should a long term gay couple be able to receive Workers' Compensation benefits? Should a gay couple be allowed to create a life estate trust? Should a long term gay couple be able to receive Social Security benefits due to their relationship?

These are just some of the rights granted to married couples - looking at them makes what at stake more real to me. Should gay couples have any of these rights? Which ones? Why only those? Should they have no rights?

This is a lot there and, obviously, I'd be interested in hearing what anyone has to say. As for me, they should get 'em all.

 

Don't worry, Laches - I just ordered the NWN trilogy yesterday! (Never fear, Tal, I did it through Amazon.)

Anyway, you asked:

Should lifelong friends have these rights? Maybe employers and long-term employees? Professors and their students? Preachers and their congregations? Therapists and their patients? Contractors and their clients? Soldiers and their commanding officers? Coaches and their athletes?

There are lots of very, very close human relationships that people forge over a lifetime. Given the extent of the divorce rot, many of these other relationships are closer and longer-lasting than marriage. But they're still different, and appropriately so.

To my (religiously biased) eyes, the association of sex-plus-commitment is making people jump to the wrong conclusion. Merely because something is like marriage in some respects does not mean that it really is marriage. Nor does it mean we should pretend it's marriage as a useful fiction to secure some admittedly useful rights.