Marriage, Back door laws and policies, and tolerance issues

Remove all ads!

LKD,

Could you by chance site some of these studies to which you are referring? I have never seen a study which showed the traditional nuclear family was better for the children than a family where both parents were of the same sex. I have seen studies where two-parent households provided a better environment for raising children than single-parent households. However, that doesn't really get us anywhere, because in the case of gay marriage, by definition there would be two parents.

Furthermore preventing gay marriage will do very little to curtail gays raising children. Very few states have laws on the books that prevent gays from adopting. (The only one I'm aware of is Utah - which has a law that states only married people can adopt, which effectively prevents gays from adopting.) No states have (and in fact no state legally could) prevent gay women from being artificially inseminated.

My wife is good friends with a gay woman. We don't have gay marriage where I live, but my wife's friend cohabitates with her partner. A few years ago her partner got artificially inseminated. (As it turned out, she ended up having twin boys - talk about getting more than you bargained for!) And now my wife's friend (who is the younger of the two women) is considering getting artificially inseminated as well.

The cost associated with artifical insemination is high, so it isn't something the typical gay woman can pursue. However, both of these women are professionals, are well-paid and are financially secure. There's no way you can stop this from happening. In fact, from what I understand, adoption is fairly expensive as well. The only gays getting kids are the ones that are fairly well off financially - and there are voluminous studies that show the children of upper class parents do better in school and on average become much more productive members of society than their lower class counterparts.

 

No argument from me there -- you can't stop some things from happening. But that does not mean, by extension, that you should accept and approve of all those things you can't stop. That's the crux of the whole gay marriage debate, in my opinion.

If I ever find citations I'll pass them on.

 

But if your main argument for opposing gay marriage is that it will prevent gays from raising children, and if gays are raising children regardless of being married or not - which means your main reason for opposition is not being affected by preventing gays for being married - then why are you still opposed to gay marriages?

 

I am opposed to giving social approval to what they do. I have no illusions about stopping gays from doing what they do, and any measures that aimed to do THAT would by definition be overly intrusive, IMHO. But societies have the right to let people know that their behaviour is not approved of or endorsed. That's where I draw the line, and I don't think that line is unreasonable or cruel.

edit-- I don't really advocate the whole seperate but equal thing either. But it seems to me that right now even without gay marriage gays are still able, legally, to do what they wish. They can raise children, leave their resources in wills to whoever they wish, and name who they wish as beneficiaries in any state or work funded insurance plans. Where's the horrid oppression?

 

True. But unless a good reason can be provided for that disapproval, charges of bias, discrimination and bigotry are bound to surface, and any legal standing that such measures of "disapproval" hold in court erode, which in turn leads to them being overturned as unconstitutional (at least here in the US). Simply not approving of something about this group is not enough.

 

Too late. They've already been given social approval over the past 30 or so years. Whether or not you (or an unnamed religious group) gave that approval is entirely immaterial. As it stands now, there are groups that are trying to limit rights of a fairly large chunk of society due to bias -- that's just plain wrong (and unconstitutional), no matter how you try to justify it.

 

How the heck does archaeology prove that? You have a bunch of artifacts from thousands of years ago and you make assumptions based on what you see (or is that what you want to see in them). That sounds like, to rip off a line from Dennis Miller about psychiatry, a mechanic poking around under the hood of your car with a giant foam finger. If both marriage and religion predate such recorded history, then is it possible that property rights were linked to marriage and not marriage built to simplify property rights?

In almost every government, civil rights have been attached to marriage as an encouragement of the practice. Now that religious influence is waning, people lose sight of how important heterosexual marriage is. If these civilly granted rights must be granted to homosexuals, then it can be done outside the structure of marriage. It would involve a lot less fighting too. Why can't that be accepted. Remember that just because a piece of paper crafted by politicians and lawyers who felt the practice needed to be regulated--but could not use the term religion in the process--does not mean that marriage is not religious. To a great many people, it is still a religious institution.

Saber: Funny video...

---------- Added 0 hours, 25 minutes and 57 seconds later... ----------

Your post has also neglected the gays that have reproduced the old fashioned way. Nothing society can legislate can prevent that.

But that can be accomplished civilly, and without changing the socially accepted definition of marriage.

But since Marriage does play an important role in many religions, the First Ammendment means that if CAN'T be extended to homosexuals. This is not bigotry, but simply the way it is. True equality is outside the bounds of what the state can do.

The reasons are there, but the validity of the reason is being socially challenged.

It seems the Constitution is in conflict with itself on this matter. On one hand, it obligates the government to ensure the freedoms of all, while on the other, it forbids the government to make any law affecting religion. That's why civil unions are the only workable solution in this case.

No, it's been socially tolerated for the last 35 years. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. That's one of the points LKD has been making all the way along.

No, a problematic segment of society is trying to play the homosexuals against a larger group that cannot support them with a clean conscience, which in turn denies them their rights. This creates victims, which the problematic segment uses in their criticism of the larger group. This is why Civil Unions work--it give homosexuals 100% of the legal rights they seek while protecting religious doctrine from unconstitutional government interference.

 

You appear to have a very narrow view of what encompasses the archeological record. Archeological record includes pictograms and hieroglyphics. Anyone who has studied archeology and ancient history know the two are closely related. Isolating a definition you don't like and adding confusion in such a manner is simply a smoke screen -- it's not very appropriate for an intellectual debate.

If you were to look at the history of the US tax code you would realize this is false (unless by "almost" you mean to exclude the US -- but then why would you be arguing in this thread). Two single people often pay less taxes than a married couple making the same amount of money (this was universally true a few years ago, but the "marriage tax penalty" only exists for some income brackets currently). Civil rights protect individuals when they dissolve their marriage.

There is no need to encourage marriage, but rather a need to protect people entering into a marriage contract. If you look at history (including the Bible) you will see this is true.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is not valid. Freedom of religion does not include the ability of a religion to discriminate against others -- this point has been made several times (by those on the board much more qualified than either of us in Constitutional Law). You continue to ignore valid points made by qualified experts simply because "you don't like the answer."

You are admitting marriage is not only a religious institution. If marriage is not solely a religious institution, then religion cannot lay total claim to the practice and civil authorities can regulate marriage as well.

 

My question is: how can archeology establish X as older than Y when it doesn't even have an estimate on the actual age of Y? All we know about the age of Judaism (if you define it as the belief system, not the system of sacrifices) is that it is older than written records. We know that the oldest records written of Judaism were passed down orally before they were written, but how long they were passe down orally is a mystery. How can you say marriage is older than Judaism if you don't know how old Judaism is?

 

Because the old testament was nice enough to provide us with a handy time-line of human history, dating from the beginning of time, which we can use to estimate the age of the earth or at least the the humans living on it at around 6500 years*. Anything older than that would not only challenge the creation and flood myths of Judeo-Christian tradition, but would also pre-date the time line that the bible provides for the Jewish people. Claiming to be the oldest people doesn't actually make it so, especially when we can carbon-date our artifacts.

* This estimate was initially made by the Bishop James Ussher. There is some variance in estimates provided, but they all place the age of the earth in the same ballpark.

 

So you can prove that there were marriages being performed, let's say, 8,000 years ago?

 

There are many dating techniques and while one may not have a high degree of accuracy, combining multiple techniques becomes highly accurate. From my studies in anthropology and ancient history, Judaism appears to be an offshoot of the Babylonian empire. There is no evidence of the Hebrew tribes before that time and the oral tradition of Noah is consistent with records describing a particular devastating flood of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Certainly as much as you can prove there wasn't. (Two can play that game.) We can certainly go back to the Babylonian empire and see marriages existed.

 

If we are talking the flood it is probably a merged story of many floods that struck pre-historic man. Saw some interesting documentary about the creation of the black sea. It is not that old, men existed by the time the water broke through the Bospor flooding huge swaths of land. The flood is part of many ancient histories.

 

Absolutely, joacqin. A great flood is a common motif in nearly all mythologies. But this is quite expected as most civilizations started in fertile agricultural areas -- i.e., next to rivers.

 

My method of dating doesn't seem to be working - I haven't gone on a date in months!

/end bad jokes.

 

Saber, has anyone beaten you in the street for that yet?

T2, I, personally, am not trying to prove anything. I am simply pointing out what I see to be a vast logical falacy. As to the idea that Judaism developed out of the Babylonian Empire, while it isn't conclusively false, it's hardly a strong connection, either. Early Judaism shows almost as much in common with Egypt at the time as it does with Babylon, from my understanding. It is also arguable that the culture pre-dated Babylon and Egypt and, as a minor culture on the fringe, was influenced by their rise.

The point to all this is, we can't really put even a vague date on it with any certainty.

 

But again, how do you interpret that with enough certainty to prove anything?

Exactly, it should be handled through civil means without changing the definition of marriage itself. That's the whole point of this arguement!

Religious priveledges are contingent upon adherence to the faith in question. I can't show up to church stoned out of my gourd and still expect all the priviledges associated with maintaining a membership in good standing. To many religions, homosexual behaviour is strictly forbidden, and thus they are not obligated to provide sacrements to practicing homosexuals.

Further, there is a legal precident that defers to the majority of faiths when religious activity is legally regulated. In 1878, the Supreme court upheld the ban on plural marriage because the majority of religious denominations did not allow for the practice. This precident therefore means that Gay Marriage should not be legalized. Therefore any civil rights associated with Marriage that are to be extended to homosexuals must come through civil means without bothering the religious people...

No, just that some people don't believe this. It does not change that it IS a religious institution. Extending marriage to homosexuals would offend a great many of the people that do cinsider it to be religious...

But how does that make "because some researcher said so" better than "because some holy man said so" when the source material is still vague and subject to interpretation?

The Bible did say that Abraham was from Babylon, but both civilizations would come from a common root. My point all along is that Marriage came from that common root--The first Humans, created by God.

So neither side can prove anything? So now we're back to what the people believe marriage and civil rights ought to be. I still don't see why gays can't get their rights without changing the definition of Marriage.

 

And

And

And finally...

This is why people insult you and say you lack basic reading comprehension skills Gnarff. This is, oh, about the 50th time you've said this, and about the 50th time people respond by telling you that you are just plain wrong. Your interpretation of the US Constitution is completely wrong, and given the similarities regarding freedom of religion between the US Constitution and the Canadian Constitution, I surmise that you lack a basic understanding about federal Canadian law as well.

For what will almost certainly not be the last time:

The legalization of gay marriage would not force churches to perform gay marriages. The fact that no church in Canada has been forced to perform a gay marriage should be sufficient evidence to support that this is so.

Allowing gay marriage should not "bother" the religious people at all, considering gay marriage would be limited to a civil ceremony performed by a justice of the peace. A religion does not have the authority to tell a state who is and who is not allowed to get married by a JotP.

The fact that many people consider marriage to be a religious institution is irrelevant to the arguement when we are speaking about a civil ceremony. Or, to put in another way, marriage can only be a religious institution when performed under the precepts of a religion. For as certain as you are that marriage IS a religious institution, there are just as many people out there who are just as sure that marriage IS NOT a religious institution. If the legalization of gay marriage would force churches to perform gay marriages against the edicts of that faith, I'd be completely on your side in this arguement. The fact that gay marriage is legal in Canada, and in a half dozen or so European countries to boot, and that there is not a single instance of a church being forced into performing a gay marriage is evidence enough for me that it is possible to legalize gay marriage without forcing a church to alter its practicies.

The reason why the gay community wants to get their rights under marraige, and not some other term is that they can do so without altering the definition of marriage. Their marriage does not qualify under the Mormon definition of marriage, and the definition of a variety of other faiths, but so long as they aren't getting a marriage performed in a church that doesn't matter. To put it as bluntly as possible: Your religion does not matter to any outside of the Mormon faith. I do not have to live my life according to Mormon doctrine because I'm not a Mormon. I don't have to adhere to the Mormon definition of marriage, because I'm not a Mormon. Similarly, any member of the gay community can say I don't have to adhere to Religion X's prohibition against gay marriage because I am not a member of Religion X.

 

Ah, but Aldeth, on that same front, how long before pastors in the US can get arrested for preaching that homosexuality is a sin? Since Freedom of Religion so similar between Canada and the US, it would suggest that this would be the result.