The Inquiring Mind left a plaintive and provocative comment on an earlier post regarding the gay marriage controversy, now once again above the fold, and it was apparently swallowed by my spam file. I haven’t see much of an uptick in Ethics Alarms comments lately (and tgt is on semi-hiatus), but the spam has gotten out of control: apparently this post was deleted, even though I try to check the spam comments (about 500 a day now) to make sure legitimate ones don’t get thrown out with the bath water. I apologize to IM, and am posting the recovered comment partially in compensation, and also because he expresses a sentiment that I have heard and read from others.
I’ll be back at the end; in the meantime, here is Inquiring Mind’s Comment of the Day regarding the tactics of gay marriage advocates:
“Jack, since the aftermath of Prop 8, I have always wondered – is the thuggery/coercion and thought control a “bug” associated with the push for gay marriage, or is it a “feature” that comes with the enactment of gay marriage?
“I just want to review the conduct of gay-marriage supporters:
- The harrassment of proponents of Prop 8, including death threats received by my best friend’s wife, enters into my thinking on this front. Then there was the treatment Carrie Prejean received at the hands of Perez Hilton and Shanna Moakler, among others. Then there is the attempts to expel Julea Ward and Jennifer Keeton from counseling programs – because their worldview was informed by the same sort of Christianity.
- The legal assault on Elane Photography and other businesses run by Christians who aren’t saying they cannot have their wedding or commitment ceremony, but are asking they not be forced to take part in it – even if it is photographing or baking a cake.
- The theft (or leaking) of the National Organization for Marriage’s tax return earlier this year. Then there is what is going on with the Boy Scouts since the 2000 decision that upheld their right to decline to allow gays to join.
- The bomb threat called in during yesterday’s Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.
- The unethical (by your own admission) conduct of Vaughn Walker and the blind eye turned towards it.
So, is it a bug, or a feature? The pattern of conduct I am seeing indicates that thuggery/coercion, and thought control are a feature of gay marriage, with religious freedom becoming a dead letter, by the admission of some proponents of gay marriage.
“If this is how the advocates act when they have relatively little power over their opponents, then how will they act with even more power? As far as I can tell, they have no problem trampling over my core freedoms. As such, it comes down to a case of “my rights or theirs” – and in that sort of case, can anyone blame people for fighting to preserve what they feel is rightfully theirs?”
I’m back.
I’m not sure what the difference is between a “bug” and a “feature,” but when a group believes it is being discriminated against, it is rare indeed for all components and factions of that group to react with tolerance, civility and understanding. As always, the noisiest, most uncivil, most disruptive and violent of the activists grab the attention and the headlines, undermining their own movement, however justified and virtuous, and hardening opposition. Indeed, the gay rights movement, in my observation, only began making headway when it largely abandoned the in-your-face tactics that were the hallmark of the group’s efforts in the 70’s and 80’s with the introduction of dignified, reasonable, and persuasive advocates who could make their case without attacks, theatrics and insults.
I suppose attempting to change the prevailing cultural message from one that gay relationships are sick and sinful to one that embraces such relationships as loving and valid and deserving legal equality could be called “mind-control,” as any cultural norm is. I’d prefer to call it education, wisdom, experience, and the process of building cultural consensus. It is no different from the similar process of rejecting former cultural beliefs that blacks were put on earth to be subservient to whites, that women are an inferior gender and unfit for the workplace of leadership, that mixed-race marriages are an abomination and that parents can and should beat their children. Culture is the means whereby we make ethical decisions, based on human experience, about what a society views as right and wrong. This culture is in the process of concluding that gay marriage, once regarded as wrong, isn’t. This is how it happens.
Almost all the incidents listed by Inquiring Mind are per se wrongful, and have been recognized as such. The government cannot ostracize citizens for holding opinions, as the arrogant mayors set out to do to the owner of Chic-Fil-A. Criminal acts like bombing and stealing proprietary documents are obviously unethical whatever the goal. I do think that impatience by same-sex marriage advocates has led to a lot of corner-cutting and biased rationalizing by professionals who should know better, as in the case of Judge Walker. (I don’t understand why Inquiring Mind calls that an “admission” on my part, as if I was somehow cheering from the sidelines. I deplored it at the time, and deplore it now.)
From my first commentary on this topic, long before Ethics Alarms, I cautioned gay rights advocates not to assume that every opponent was driven by bigotry. That is unfair. Many are motivated by adherence to religious beliefs that are not only long-standing but also that were never under serious question until relatively recently. The change in public and cultural attitudes has come with epic speed, and it should not be surprising, or held against those left behind in the dust wondering what happened, that the former majority is puzzled, frightened, threatened and confused. The Golden Rule suggests—you don’t have to be religious to benefit from the Golden Rule–that same-sex marriage advocates, whose victory is assured, display the tolerance, generosity, kindness and understanding toward their adversaries that they once sought themselves. My late father and mother, who were in their 80’s when this sea-change occurred and weren’t particularly religious, never understood, and probably never would have. They weren’t bigots, or stupid; they were just raised in a culture that regarded the idea of men marrying men as unimaginable, weird, and perverse, and they didn’t have time to undo decades of conditioning in a few years.
This is an ethical conflict, where two important ethical principles are in direct opposition: religious freedom, and equal rights. Resolving ethical conflicts are always wrenching, but in the U.S., we have pretty decisively established the ethical pecking order: equal rights wins. Bad conduct by the eventual winners will only postpone victory, and leave necessary societal scars.
Whether the tactics Inquiring Minds rightly condemns are a bug or a feature, they are counter-productive and wrong.
_________________________________
Graphic: Lehigh Valley Live
Ethics Alarms 
Dear Jack:
I think that Inquiring Minds has correctly stated the actions of same-sex marriage proponents on this debate. There is absolutely no civility in this debate, mostly coming from the Left. The proponents in the MSM masquerading as news reporters are simply giddy with excitement that the Supreme Court will (FINALLY) strike down DOMA and Prop 8. Just look at the comments on any story on the internet or social media. Expression of an opposite viewpoint will result immediate personal attacks as misguided, immoral, prejudiced and such people are marginalized, dismissed and reprimanded as bigots, bible-thumping troglodytes, or down-right LGBT haters. The Catholic Church just elected a new Pope. How many MSM talking heads declared that Pope Francis, a Man of the People (whatever that means) will herald a new, modern Catholic Church, bringing it into the 21st century and dispatching antiquated notions on same-sex marriage, women priests, contraception and abortion on demand, and . . . so on and so on and so on.
Here is a perfect example from a Facebook friend of mine: “I’m getting really irritated seeing all these ranting posts saying things like ‘Now that people are distracted by the whole marriage equality debate ______ etc.’ This debate isn’t a god damn ‘distraction’. It’s people fighting for their lives. Fighting to have the societal/economic/etc rights as everyone else. Fighting for their right to be together and have a family without living in terror. Fighting for their basic human rights. Fighting to be recognized as a HUMAN BEING. This is nothing short of one of the most epic human rights battles in recent history, and it blows my mind that some people can continue to be so fucking ignorant as to toss the ‘distraction’ label on this fight. Prop 8 and DOMA need to be obliterated. It’s a movement that is long overdue, especially in a society so fast to call itself ‘civilized’. I’m standing on the right side of history; the one that embraces people for who they are, and the one that will not just give up and let people who still cling to the notions of the Golden Age tell me that I’m an abomination just because I’m gay.”
Think about that post. Who is fighting for their lives? Who is living in terror? Who is not being recognized as a human being? Who is so ‘f***ing ignorant’? Who is standing on the ‘wrong’ side of history?
It seems to me that debate over same-sex marriage or union should be held in the public domain and resolved (however messily) through our democratic processes. It should not be decided by judicial fiat. That is one of the big problems with Roe v. Wade, regardless of one’s belief on abortion. Prop 8 is a perfect example of the process. Why should the will of more than 53% of Californians be disregarded? That is a higher percentage than President Obama won in the 2008 (52.9%) and 2012 (50%) presidential elections. Why is that electorate dismissed as uninformed or wrong in defining marriage as the union of one man to one woman but declared enlightened in electing President Obama?
You have correctly stated that the actions identified by Inquiring Minds are abhorrent, unethical, immoral, illegal and unproductive. However, those actions are persuasive and effective. The debate is about the ‘ban on gay marriage’, not about the definition of marriage. The debate is about ‘homophobes denying gay-Americans (???) their basic civil rights, forcing them to live in the shadows trembling in fear of jack-booted thugs busting down their doors. All those shouting voices have effectively silenced good, moral, decent people from expressing an opposing viewpoint.
jvb
You have correctly stated that the actions identified by Inquiring Minds are abhorrent, unethical, immoral, illegal and unproductive. However, those actions are persuasive and effective.
So you’re an ends justifies the means kinda person?
forcing them to live in the shadows trembling in fear of jack-booted thugs busting down their doors.
Jack booted thugs have been kicking down the doors of homosexuals?
texagg04:
Nope, I am not an ends justify the means kind of guy. I am stating that the shouting voices have been very effective in stifling the debate.
As for the ‘jack-booted thugs’, I was using artistic license (erm . . um . . .) to make the point that proponents of traditional marriage are considered evil people, especially in light of the quote I took from my facebook page.
jvb
All those shouting voices have effectively silenced good, moral, decent people from expressing an opposing viewpoint.
There is no moral, decent opposing viewpoint on this issue, and the idea that the bigots have been silenced is laughable. If they’d been silenced, there wouldn’t even be an argument anymore.
The reason this needs to be handled by the courts is because of rational ignorance. It doesn’t make sense for people to actually know everything. It’s the problem of tyranny of the majority. The courts were set up as a check on our democracy. If 51% of the population wants to make it illegal for black people to reproduce, should we allow that to occur?
Think about that post. Who is fighting for their lives? Who is living in terror? Who is not being recognized as a human being? Who is so ‘f***ing ignorant’? Who is standing on the ‘wrong’ side of history?
The gays are fighting for their lives, as the bigots are trying to keep them from being able to do what straights do. They are being treated as second class citizen.
The gays are living in terror that their life partner will have a serious health issue, and they won’t be allowed in to see or make health decisions for them. They’re living in terror that their partner will die and they won’t be able to support themselves without death benefits, or lose their joint retirement nest egg to unfair taxes.
The gays are not being recognized as human beings by the people who deny otherwise basic human rights to them.
The bigots are so fucking ignorant that they don’t see this.
The bigots are on the wrong side of history.
I think paralleling one of your earlier statements shows the problem with your thinking:
The proponents in the MSM masquerading as news reporters are simply giddy with excitement that the Supreme Court will (FINALLY) strike down the ban on interracial marriage. Just look at the comments on any story on the internet or social media. Expression of an opposite viewpoint will result immediate personal attacks as misguided, immoral, prejudiced and such people are marginalized, dismissed and reprimanded as bigots, bible-thumping troglodytes, or down-right black haters.
Would you have said that? I think it’s proper to dismiss bigots as bigots when they are pushing bigotry. The bigotry may be well-intentioned, but that doesn’t mean it’s not misguided, immoral and prejudiced.
“There is no moral, decent opposing viewpoint on this issue..”
And right there we see that you’re only listening to half the conversation. I’m pretty staunchly opposed to gay marriage, and yet even I can admit that the other side has some valid points. Their complaints are valid, their feelings are genuine -yet their solutions are shortsighted, misdirected, and destabilizing. And that’s even without arguing slippery slopes. Logic over emotion – isn’t that the rule? “I just want to marry the man I love!” is which kind of argument, again?
Can you point out one of these moral, decent arguments against gay marriage? I follow this issue pretty closely, and I can’t think of any.
I agree that just because there are emotional appeals for a position doesn’t mean their aren’t logical arguments in support of it as well.
As an aside, your example of an emotional appeal is really a logical argument couched in emotional language. There’s an implicit clause that you’re leaving out: “You’re allowed to marry the person you love.” The argument is really: “You’re allowed to marry the person you love. Love is love. Why can’t I marry the person I love?”
Well, literal reading of the Old Testament holds homosexuality to be a sin, so the argument is one of morality, which isn’t ethics, just “because God says so, that’s why.” For a devout Christian who believes that the Bible is the revealed wisdom of the Lord, that ends the discussion: it’s God vs. the U.S.
I was using moral and ethical interchangeably. If moral was meant to be religious, then I’d reject that a moral argument is a decent or valid argument.* I don’t take “appeal to authority” as valid.
*Moral arguments may wrap valid arguments, but they’d be valid independent of the religious language.
“For a devout Christian who believes that the Bible is the revealed wisdom of the Lord, that ends the discussion: it’s God vs. the U.S.”
Except… they allow the eating of shellfish, think nothing of divorce, and generally pick and choose which parts of the Bible they wish to adhere to. “Devout” nothing!
At least the Reconstructionists aren’t hypocrites, even if they’re bloodthirsty theocrats who want to see idolators and heretics put to death, as mandated in the Bible.
Christianity is not incompatible with the USA. Believing the Bible is the revealed word of God is. Over 90% of those who claim to believe that are very, very picky about which parts they adhere to though. Hypocrites, blind to their hypocrisy, because it excuses their bigotry.
Because marriage is not, and has never been ultimately about love. That’s not why it was created, that’s not why it has continued to exist, and that’s not why it’s important.
Is that supposed to be the moral, decent argument against gay marriage? I just see a random non sequitur.
No, it is about forming stable units, based on principles of loyalty, affection, and economic stability.
Demagogues and the Marriage Debate .
Actually, those studies simply seem to suggest that having a stable two parent arrangement is best; Swedes kick our ass in intact families, despite having legalized civil unions in 1995, adoption in 2002, artificial insemination in 2005, and full-out marriage in 2009, and despite the fact that their out-of-wedlock births are about twice as common. It’s also worth noting that the rate of change in non-marital birthrates bears little correlation with passage of gay partnership legislation.
And polygamy is a different issue altogether (the mechanics of dancing a tango with one partner are the same regardless of gender, which can’t necessarily be said for when you increase the number of partners you dance with). Also, it’s worth noting that even in places where it is legal, polygamy is only practiced by a minority of the population (honestly, it’s already basically being practiced by those who’d be expected to adopt it; I’m looking at you, Tiger). Hell, legal polygamy often exists alongside anti-gay worldviews.
“It is not bigotry to insist that there is a good reason why marriage has existed in every known human society, and why it has always involved the uniting of men and women.”
Not bigotry – but factually and historically incorrect. Same-sex marriages have been recorded for thousands of years – as a minority, to be sure.
As a digression..
Until comparatively recently (when talking about “thousands of years”), Churches would not conduct such profane acts as weddings inside the church, they had to be outside the church doors. It was only in the last 500 years, in the spirit of “if you can’t beat em, join em” that marriage became a “sacrament” rather than a way of controlling sinful lusts and the pleasures of the flesh.
The first detailed account of a Christian wedding in the West dates from the 9th century. Before then, it was a civil affair that could receive a blessing – such as the launch of a ship, or laying a foundation stone.
“Same-sex marriages have been recorded for thousands of years – as a minority, to be sure.”
This claim sounds like BS to me could you footnote it or give me some examples?
Sergius and Baccus for example. as quoted in A History of Same Sex Marriage, WN Eskridge Jr – Virginia Law Review, 1993
See also
Same-sex marriage: the personal and the political. Lahey, Kathleen A., Kevin Alderson. Insomniac Press, 2000.
The existing practice of same-sex marriage was forbidden by the Codex Theodosius (C. Th. 9.7.3) in 342 CE. Vir could marry femina, but that’s it.
Marriage between men is mentioned in Martial 1.24 and 12.42; and in Juvenal 2.117–42.
cf:
Roman Homosexuality, pp. 28, 280; Williams,
The Roman Wedding: Ritual and Meaning in Antiquity Karen K. Hersh, (Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 36;
Power and Eroticism in Imperial Rome Caroline Vout, (Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 151ff.
Note however that Roman law did not recognise these marriages formally – both Martial and Jevenal wrote warnings that if these marriages continued, formal recognition was inevitable – as happened later under Nero.
Artifacts from Egypt,show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. (tomb drawings of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep )
Will that do? I’m not an expert on the subject, but 10 minutes of Googling gave those references. It’s not as if this is controversial, just not well publicised.
Like marriage being considered profane by the Church until the 14th century, and not made a sacrament till the 16th.
No that is not enough. I sorry but this is just a collection of silly doctoral dissertations from a bunch of silly gender studies students. Give me an example of a society where gay marriage has been widely instituted and recognized as equal to real marriage? You are trying to establish a precedent from a bunch of anecdotal cases spread over hundreds of years. Just admit that the case for gay marriage is unprecedented and radical.
Ming Dynasty.
“Ming Dynasty.”
With all due respect Zoe can’t you see how weak your case is? There really isn’t a strong historical record of gay marriage. Eskridge is the only author I saw making that claim and I have a feeling that his claims wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny. I have no problem with people arguing that you should change marriage to accommodate gay unions. But at least have the decency to admit that the change you are proposing is unprecedented.
As opposed to, say, the Bible? Most of which was written centuries after the events it purports to describe?
At least I gave multiple sources – and you can go view the Egyptian evidence yourself, just as you can view the West Wall of the Temple on the Mount.
Please apply a uniform standard to both your views and others. What that standard is, I leave up to you.
Re Nero – All I did was show that formally recognised same-sex marriages existed in Rome for at least 300 years – rather longer than the existence of the USA. Right up to the time Rome became Christianised (and subsequently fell – something I consider completely unrelated, except that the factors encouraging a radical change to society, and those that weakened the Empire, are common. They share a common cause, neither caused the other. Besides which, the Eastern Roman Empire lasted til the 1400s de facto, and 1918 de jure).
I make no claim as to whether this was a good or bad thing, just that the lie about “no same-sex marriage has ever existed anywhere before” is just that – a lie. Not even a pardonable mistake.
Of course, many people, most people, who repeat this lie do so out of good faith. They trust their sources, who tell hem what they already “know” has to be true. Something we all do, myself included, though I try to minimise that and correct myself when wrong,
But even a few minutes Googling shows that such a claim is, at the very least, extremely questionable – no, in view of the evidence, not just questionable, just plain false.
Yes, but Zoe, same sex marriage in the context of Rome and pagan societies was not looked upon as “same sex marriage” by modern commentators, but just one of many “perversions.” This is where the “no true Scotsman,” tgt’s favorite fallacy, bites with a vengeance. Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, so a “marriage” between a man and a man reported in ancient histories is no more a true marriage to those commentators than the “marriage” between the snake and the chicken in Woody Allen’s “What’s Up, Tiger Lilly?”
(One of my faves, by the way.)
As opposed to, say, the Bible?
No need for the bible Zoe, I can list a hundred societies that define marriage as one male and one female. You offer sketchy examples from part of the Ming Dynasty and sometime in Egypt’s ancient history as evidence. Just admit that there is no precedent for gay marriage in history. This doesn’t invalidate your overall argument but this aspect of your case is laughable. But you can’t abandon this aspect of the argument no matter how ridiculous it gets, because then you would have to admit that you are proposing a radical redefinition of marriage.
Not in Uganda, for example, no it isn’t. A Christian marriage is between one man and at least one woman, possibly many.
Though being Gay is illegal in Uganda, and if a law currently before the Parliament passes, a Capital crime.
I contend that the marriages described in Roman times are far, far closer to the modern definition practiced in the USA in the last 40 years than anything practiced in the Middle Ages.
Quoting from The Laws Are Made for People: An Argument for Equal Marriage by Helen Dale, a friend of mine:
Click to access an_argument_for_equal_marriage.pdf
Let’s look at Edmund Burke on Marriage:
[W]idows, who had made one sacrifice to the feudal tyranny, were neither suffered to continue in the widowed state, nor to choose for themselves the partners of their second bed.
In fact,marriage was publicly set up to sale.
The ancient records of the Exchequer afford many instances where some women purchased, by heavy fines, the privilege of a single life; some the free choice of an husband; and others the liberty of rejecting some person particularly disagreeable.
And […] there are not wanting examples, where a woman was fined in a considerable sum, that she not be compelled to marry a certain man; the suitor on the other hand has outbid her; and solely by offering more for the marriage than the heiress could to prevent it, he carried his point directly and avowedly against her inclinations.
— ‘Towards an Abridgment of English History Chapter VIII: Reign of John’ from Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke, Volume I: The Early Writings (Oxford 1997), p 545.
As a woman (though some have disputed that), as a human being (though some have disputed that too) I claim that it as at least arguable that the relationship between equals, voluntarily entered into, described in same-sex Roman marriage up until the Codex Theodosius was closer to “marriage” as currently defined in, say, New York in 2013 than it is to the relationship described by Burke.
.
I can’t help but notice the irony…. “Martial and Jevenal wrote warnings that if these marriages continued, formal recognition was inevitable – as happened later under Nero.” Nero. Yes, just in time for the fall of the Roman empire. True, true and unrelated? …. or maybe not?
I’ve never heard the end of the Roman Empire associated with the reign of Nero. Don’t think the analogy works. I doubt gay anything had much to do with day to day life in the Empire let alone its fall.
Known for persecuting Christians, burning them in his garden at night to provide light, killer of Peter and Paul, slayer of his mother. Many early Christians believed him to be the AntiChrist, or that he would return from the dead as the AntiChrist. The conditions for the fall of Rome were set up long before its fall, just as it has and will be for the United States, with the 1913 establishment of the Federal Reserve and the 1971 abolishment of the gold standard.
In oral argument, Justice Kennedy implied that common law did not recognize marriages between persons of the same sex.
Supreme Court later reaffirmed in Sosna v. Iowa that “[t]he State . . . has absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its
own citizen shall be created, and the causes for which it may be
dissolved,” 419 U.S. 393 at 404, quoting Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 at 734-735 (1878) Later, in Zablocki v. Redhail, Justice Powell noted that the case was about laws that interfere “with the decision to marry in a traditional family setting”, 434 U.S. 374 at 396 (1978) (Powell, J., concurring) (emphasis added) and that “State regulation has included bans on incest, bigamy, and homosexuality, as well as various preconditions to marriage, such as blood tests.” id. at 399 (emphasis added)
I can ignore the appeal to authority, as, even if the claim were true, it doesn’t refute the quoted statement. That it was not English common law to record same-sex marriages does not mean they haven’t been recorded for thousands of years.
1 Corinthians 7 says there were marriages by early Christians.
“Pro, con, or undecided, Americans should be able to discuss something as serious as redefining marriage without resorting to slander and ad hominem attacks. There are sincere, compassionate, and thoughtful people on both sides of this issue. How can you tell who they are? They aren’t the ones calling people bigots.”
That makes sense. I had a comment written down but Word Press wouldn’t let my sign in…again and I forgot .
Getting rid of slander and ad hominem? Good.
Claiming that calling a bigot a bigot is slander and ad hominem? Horrible.
The fact is, tgt, you cry “bigot” to claim a monopoly on decency and morality, and to silence and suppress any opposition.
You really do not want a fair or open debate. You want people to accept your conclusions, or bully them into deciding to shut up.
You’re little more than a bully.
So is it your view that the possibility that bigotry has had an effect on policy choices, is not something that can ever be discussed in a civil conversation, under any circumstances?
There needs to be far more proof of bigotry than just opposing gay marriage. If disagreeing with a political agenda is enough to accuse someone of base motives, then we’re defining terms like bigot and racist way down.
Absent proof beyond disagreeing with tgt’s position of bigotry on my part, I have no other conclusion that to conclude that just throwing the term around to bully opposition into silence.
Are you saying that whether or not banning same-sex marriage is a bigoted policy, is not an issue that people of good will can disagree on?
If a sincere person could in good faith believe that legal inequality against lesbian and gay couples is a bigoted policy, then logically it’s reasonable for someone to say so during a debate. You may not AGREE with that assessment, but it would be ridiculous for you to claim that everyone has to agree with you in order to hold a reasonable opinion.
Furthermore, since you don’t think twice about terming the entire movement for SSM “thuggery” based on the actions of just a few, you’re being a hypocrite. If you’re genuinely against using harsh terms to characterize an opposing side during a debate, then you can’t possibly justify your own use of the word “thuggery” and similar terms.
If you say, on the other hand, that the word “thuggery” is okay as you use it because it’s your good-faith belief about how SSM proponents have acted, then you must allow that it’s okay for us to use the word “bigotry” for the same reason. (And I think we can back up our claims FAR better than you can back up yours.)
* * *
Regarding “bigotry,” I don’t think anyone who knows history can deny that good, kind, sincere people can nonetheless have their policy views effected by bigotry. Think of the millions of people who favored slavery; they weren’t all evil people, or stupid people, or insincere. In many cases, they were just raised in a bigoted society which warped their judgement, even though they were also good and kind people in many ways.
Ditto for the many people who once would have said that colleges shouldn’t admit women. Ditto for the many people who once favored private clubs keeping Jews from joining the clubs. Many of those people were kind people who didn’t wish harm on anyone. But that doesn’t change the fact that their views were bigoted.
IM,
There needs to be far more proof of bigotry than just opposing gay marriage.
Being against gay marriage is being for irrational discrimination against gay people. What more proof do you need?
If someone’s against women’s suffrage, they are a sexist.
If someone’s says blacks shouldn’t be allowed on welfare (but with no mention of whites), then they’re racist.
No more confirmation needed.
If disagreeing with a political agenda is enough to accuse someone of base motives, then we’re defining terms like bigot and racist way down.
Being against a political agenda is not necessarily bigoted. No one has claimed such. Being against a political agenda to give equal rights to a downtrodden group is bigoted.
You committed a generalization fallacy here. The details of the political agenda matter.
—
I’d respond to the last paragraph, but it’s incoherent.
Ampersand & IM:
The fact is, the sum total of your proof that I am a bigot is the fact that I am opposed to re-defining marriage. I’m sorry – I support civil unions, provided that there are protections in place for people like Julea Ward and Jennifer Keeton, and businesses like Elane Photography. I am not willing to lose my religious freedom, either.
Or are you two really anti-Catholic/anti-Mormon/anti-Christian? There is just as much proof of your bias against those denominations in this thread as there is of me being an anti-gay bigot.
Fred Phelps and his wacko cult are bigots. I do NOT think that people like Maggie Gallagher or Mitt Romney are.
I’d also advise caution going down this path. In the future, someone on the right could decide YOUR dissent from some issue makes your rights not worth protecting.
Inquiring Mind:
Your answer fails to respond to any of my critiques or arguments. It seems to me that what you want is one standard for yourself (it’s perfectly civil and reasonable to label all opponents “thugs” based on the actions of just a handful), and a different standard for us (no civilized discussion can ever bring up the concept of “bigotry”). That seems hypocritical, and that you don’t even attempt to defend your double-standard implies that you realize it’s indefensible.
Nor did you respond to any of my historic examples. To say that someone holds a bigoted policy view is not to say that they are evil, or malicious, or bad; it is to say their view is mistaken, because it treats a particular minority group in an unjust and unfair fashion. Historically, many kind, sincere, smart people have been misled by bigotry into holding mistaken views (think of all the ordinary, everyday Americans who at one time supported Jim Crow laws). Why do you think it’s not possible that you could have made a similar mistake, when so many smart, sincere Americans in the past have made such mistakes?
You’re also conflating anti-discrimination law and civil marriage law, although logically these are separate issues. Elane Photography is located in New Mexico, which does not currently recognize same-sex marriage. A similar case took place here in Oregon recently (involving a cakemaker), even though SSM is banned in the Oregon state constitution.
Lawsuits like Elane Photography are not caused by same-sex marriage laws, and virtually all the cases that have happened so far have been in states that don’t recognize SSM. Such lawsuits are a result of anti-discrimination law, not legal SSM. To say “I oppose same-sex marriage because of Elane Photography” is, logically, a non sequitur.
The fact is, tgt, you cry “bigot” to claim a monopoly on decency and morality, and to silence and suppress any opposition.
Absolutely not. When something is bigoted, I call it bigoted to be accurate. There is no attempt to silence, and I have never claimed a monopoly on decency. Again, that a person has one bad idea doesn’t mean all their ideas can’t be good.
You really do not want a fair or open debate. You want people to accept your conclusions, or bully them into deciding to shut up.
You’re little more than a bully.
Project much? You’re the one trying to censor the language used in the debate.
The attempt of actual bullies to claim bullying when people call them out is pretty horrid. If you don’t like the label “bigot”, maybe you should look inward.
Where was the moral, decent argument against gay marriage?
I see an intent to deceive: “Family structure matters, and children are more likely to suffer problems when they are not raised by their married mothers and fathers.” In reality, it’s stable homes and non-stable homes.
I see a mischaracterization and attempt to change the pass: “It is not bigotry to resist the dishonest comparison of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage — skin color has nothing to do with wedlock, while sex is fundamental to it.” The comparison is based on the arguments and language used. When the argument is “the bible says X is bad,” than referencing similar situations where people argued “the bible says X is bad” is proper. Also, while we can agree now that skin color has nothing to do with wedlock, that wasn’t considered the case for the anti-interracial marriage crowd.
I see a persecution complex and crying wolf: “And it is not bigotry to fear that a social change as radical as same-sex marriage could lead to grave and unintended consequences, from the persecution of religious institutions to a growing clamor for legalizing polygamy.”
The religious have suggested that various secularizations of government would cause religious persecution. None have ever come true. *Ahwooooooooo*. Calling this a radical social change is pretty much lying. Gay people have been coupling off as long as history has been in existence. We didn’t have a massive influx of straight people becoming gay after Loving, so why now? *Ahwooooooo*
Past that, I see an attempt to control language, something that should always be treated with suspicion.
Again, where’s the decent, moral argument?
The fact is tgt is a bigot. He believes every man,woman and child who is Christian are evil personified. Really? Not one Christian has ever done anything good? They just go about spreading hate wherever they go? What about Christians in other lands? Do they all go around murdering,pillaging,raping those who disagree with them? Not one single good Christian.
I have never claimed such. Now you’re just lying.
“I have never claimed such. Now you’re just lying.”
But you do seem to imply it. That’s why I went off on you. Because of a Christian’s views on homosexuality that automatically makes them a bigot?
Wikipedia – Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.
Because of a Christian’s views on homosexuality that automatically makes them a bigot?
If a Christian wants to treat homosexuals different from heterosexuals, then yes, that automatically makes them a bigot. You may treat your friends fairly in your direct dealings, but if you vote against gay marriage, you’re treating all homosexuals with contempt and intolerance.
And if we were talking about legalizing pedophilia? or bestiality? or polygamy? When traditional marriage is something only bigots believe in, where does it end?
John Corvino rebuts the “PIB arguments” (PIB stands for “poly, incest, bestiality” comprehensively here.
Taking off from that, I always find it weird that people try to compare polygamy with gay marriage when, if Saudi Arabia is any indication, countries that legalize polygamy also tend to be both very religious and very anti-gay.
This piece is quite well-argued, and addresses most of the common objections, including my own. And if acceptance of gay legal unions encourages more contentment, sense of fulfillment and stability in their lives, then let them be. And so, I hope you are right, that the acceptance of PIB will, in fact, NOT be a follow-on to acceptance of gay legal unions.
” but if you vote against gay marriage, you’re treating all homosexuals with contempt and intolerance.”
I’ve never voted against it nor do I plan to. As has been pointed out marriage as an institution is not solely a Christian domain as other religions practice it as well as non-religious. You,yourself,are an atheist and married. At this point I’m neither here nor there regarding gay marriage. If they want to marry,then let them marry!
Karla, I’m really glad to hear you say that! As long as you believe in legal equality, I have no argument with you.
“Karla, I’m really glad to hear you say that! As long as you believe in legal equality, I have no argument with you.”
Thank you! I try to be reasonable. If I’ve been wrong I’ll admit it. 🙂
I’m glad to hear it to. I think I assumed off of this: “[I] don’t personally support the lifestyle but that doesn’t mean I want to hurt or hate gays”.
My mistake.
Semi-off-topic: We really need more words than bigot. There are multiple concepts caught up in that word.
There’s the true bigot. They believe there’s a difference between people of X and Y; they believe that they should be treated differently and/or actually treat them differently.
There the accidental bigot. For people who are for equality in one realm (say between the sexes), but say something bigoted (or act in a bigoted way) without realizing it’s bigoted (like saying that that there are more male voices heard in school because women raise their hands less — in reality, women raise their hands comparably with men, they’re just called on less).
Then there’s the equality in practice bigot. They may believe there’s a difference, but they want to treat them equally anyone.
There are probably more cases, but just those 3 show the issue. All of us show up in case 2 occasionally, and sometimes get defensive when we’re called out. If there was another term for it, we might pick up on the problem easier.
Off-topic: I’m actually divorced. More off-topic, but entertaining: I was married in a Catholic Church. The priest didn’t care about my actual beliefs. To check the box of “practicing Catholic”, I just had to be confirmed. It probably didn’t hurt that both my bride and I had attended said church throughout our childhoods and that my father is very active in the church.
With regards to your semi-off topic point; that reminds me of the debate we had with Jack about Arthur Jensen’s research; we probably shouldn’t use the term bigots simply for people who are curious about whether different subsets of humanity really are different, but conscientious about their research and who still believe in treating people as individuals in practice. I’ll admit that I have a few case 3 tendencies, but even then, I’m pretty sure there’s enough overlap that judging individuals for group averages is stupid.
The relationship of “husband and wife” is “founded in nature, but modified by civil society: the one directing man to continue
and multiply his species, the other in which that natural impulse must be confined and regulated.”
1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *410.
“the establishment of marriage in all civilized states is built on this natural obligation of the father to provide for his children”
id. at *35.
Marriage is “is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman.”
John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government § 78 (1690)
For the end of conjunction, between male and female, being not barely procreation, but the continuation of the species; this conjunction betwixt male and female ought to last, even after procreation, so long as is necessary to the nourishment and support of the young ones, who are to be sustained even after procreation, so long as is necessary to the nourishment and support of the young ones, who are to be sustained by those that got them, till they are able to shift and provide for themselves.
id. at § 79
Marriage “was instituted … for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children”
Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language
(1st ed. ) (1828)
“Marriage between two persons of one sex could have no validity, as none of the ends of matrimony could be accomplished thereby. It has always, therefore, been deemed requisite to the entire validity of every marriage . . . that the parties should be of different sex.”
Joel Prentiss Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Marriage
& Divorce § 225 (1st ed. 1852), quoted in Defendant Sally Howe Smith’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
and Brief in Support With Consolidated Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, Bishop v. United States, 04-CV-848-TCK-TLW (N.D. Okla.), at 18
Marriage is a “ contract, made in due form of law, by which a man and woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, and to discharge towards each other the duties imposed by law on the relation of husband and wife.”
John Bouvier, A Law
Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United
States
105 (1868)
“For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. ”
Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885), quoted in
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 at 344, 345 (1890) ,
United States v. Bitty , 208 U.S. 393 at 401 (1908), and Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 at 205 (2nd Cir. 2012) (Straub, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
“ Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” — Judge Leon M. Bazile, Loving vs Virginia
Unless your intent is to prove any and all sources fallible – which is hardly a point that furthers discussion – then this is a non-sequitor.
It’s not a non sequitur. It’s saying that just because a court/lawyer said something, doesn’t mean it’s true.
Maybe some of those quoting him should read all of Blackstone on marriage, especially the previous chapter describing how married women lose their legal identity, becoming “femes covert”, unable to own property in their own right, mere legal extensions of their husbands.
Blackstone 1: No argument against gay marriage.
Blackstone 2: No argument against gay marriage.
Locke: No argument against gay marriage.
Locke 2: No argument against gay marriage.
Webster: No argument against gay marriage.
Bishop: This is a conclusion, not an argument.
Bouvier: No argument against gay marriage.
Murphy v Ramsey: No argument against gay marriage.
If this is the best you can do, you’re essentially admitting defeat.
They are all arguments, for they describe marriage as between one man and one woman. Murphy is a very forceful argument. It argues that establishing matrimony “as a union of one man and one woman” is so “necessary and wholesome” that nothing else is more so.
Irrelevant. The door was closed. Do you think Blackstone or any of these me seriously considered that anyone would want a same sex marriage? This was all abstract. It’s like arguing that none of the Founders thought that blacks were equally able and intelligent as whites. True, but them virtually nobody had even considered that. It’s easy to hold a position when the opposing one hasn’t been formulated, tested or advocated yet.
Joel Prentiss Bishop explicitly considered the idea back in 1852.
Considering the idea is absract. The issue is materially different when real humn beings are involved.
For example the case in https://ethicsalarms.com/2013/03/28/comment-of-the-day-the-same-sex-marriage-wars/comment-page-1/#comment-69167
I would submit then, that the issue is different when domestic partnerships are involved.
They are arguments for something, maybe, but not AGAINST gay marriage.
Murphy, for instance, was about the family unit being necessary for society. There is no argument that man and woman is more important than similar type unions of man and man. There is no argument against gay marriage.
You really want to look at the definition of marriage n Blackstone? And claim that the definition of marriage hasn’t changed out of all recognition in the meantime?
I”ll quote from http://reason.org/files/an_argument_for_equal_marriage.pdf
.
It’s like tgt wanted to showcase 95% of why I refused for so long to do anything to help gay marriage – the behaviors of the supporters of gay marriage.
I don’t tend to consider helping people who speak to me like that. In fact, when face to face, I tend to punch them in the face.
Really?
Someone pointing out that you’re unintentionally doing something wrong makes you want to run away from that person’s cause? Being told the truth about your bad behaviors makes you want to punch someone in the face?
I was pretty civil in my comments. If those comments scare you away from the gay marriage position , then you wouldn’t ever have been for gay marriage. What you’re doing is blaming the person calling you out for your bad behavior.
I guess that’s the difference between me and you. When I do things wrong, I want to be called out. I want to improve. You either think you’re perfect or are too scared/weak to handle being told you’re wrong.
One “problem” that you can’t fix with legislation is people’s hearts or religious beliefs. I understand that gays feel hated and persecuted by conservative/religious folk because,sadly,it exists and for me to say I don’t personally support the lifestyle but that doesn’t mean I want to hurt or hate gays falls on deaf ears. I love my gay friends. They know I’m a Christian. My friends aren’t militant about their life choices. They just want to live and let live. One said that her being gay doesn’t define totally who she is. She is an intelligent,loving,funny,woman who happens to be gay.
Btw,Jack,I was wondering what happened to tgt. Do you know when he’s coming back?
You don’t have to smack gays in the face with your Bible. They know what you believe.
One “problem” that you can’t fix with legislation is people’s hearts or religious beliefs.
Of course, legislation will likely not change strongly held irrational beliefs, but I’m not sure of anyone who suggests it does. What legislation can do is attach a proper social stigma to certain beliefs. It can keep someone from going down the wrong track where they end up in an irrational belief. Laws against segregation have not changed the hearts of people who see blacks as second class citizens, but it has helped us move away from a society where this bigotry is common place.
[…]for me to say I don’t personally support the lifestyle but that doesn’t mean I want to hurt or hate gays falls on deaf ears. I love my gay friends.
Sure, you love your gay friends, you just wish they weren’t gay. Do you love your [not-your-race] friends, but wish they were [your race]? Do you love your ugly friends, but wish they were pretty? While your gay friends may be willing to overlook this flaw in favor of your good qualities, it’s unreasonable to expect non-friends to do the same. I overlook that a specific one of my friends is often an ass, but I don’t expect other people who haven’t known him for decades to think he’s a good guy.
They just want to live and let live.
Which is what nearly all the proponents of gay marriage want. They don’t need your approval, they just want to have the same rights you do.
One said that her being gay doesn’t define totally who she is.
Was this a surprise to you? No single trait of any person defines who they are, but oppression of any single trait a person has can dominate their life.
Btw,Jack,I was wondering what happened to tgt. Do you know when he’s coming back?
I’m back to being around a bit, I’ve been picking and choosing my postings to avoid places where I expect a particular brand of irrationality, and leaving discussions when it becomes clear that other party’s care more about being right, then what actually occurred.
“Sure, you love your gay friends, you just wish they weren’t gay. Do you love your [not-your-race] friends, but wish they were [your race]? Do you love your ugly friends, but wish they were pretty? While your gay friends may be willing to overlook this flaw in favor of your good qualities, it’s unreasonable to expect non-friends to do the same. I overlook that a specific one of my friends is often an ass, but I don’t expect other people who haven’t known him for decades to think he’s a good guy.”
Must you see evil where it doesn’t exist? Must you make me into a bad person? I don’t expect non-friends to overlook my perceived flaws so why should I overlook theirs? Everyone has flaws. Are mine worse than yours just because we don’t share the same ones?
Of course I don’t wish my friends who are different than me because they are a different race,etc. to be like me. I mean,do you really believe I want every human to be a cookie cut out of me? That’s just silly for you even to suggest such a thing.
If you believed someone was heading toward a cliff would you not rather they didn’t? Even if nobody else thought so. May be irrational to you but if I believe that, is it a flaw that I would want them to change course? According to you,every Christian has some sinister motive. You will not believe there is anything good about people of faith but you will overlook the flaws in others even if they are worse.
We have to begin by not regarding genetically programmed characteristics that do not result in harm to anyone as “flaws.” The “flaw” theory is non-weighted morality-based…it’s essentially the Ick Factor, masquerading as ethics
Then what do you suggest we call tgt’s idiocy? 🙂
Must you make me into a bad person?
I’m not making you out to be anything. I’m pointing out what your logic appeared to be.
You have denied my premise that you would prefer for your gay friends to be straight. I can’t reconcile that with disapproving of being gay. And from your cliff analogy, you don’t don’t seem to agree with it either.
I did not suggest that you want everyone to be a cookie cutter of you. I suggested that what you seemed to be doing with your gay friends would be like saying you love your ugly friend, despite her ugliness, like there’s something wrong with being ugly.
I did not suggest sinister motives for your beliefs. I suggested that your beliefs are wrong. If you think someone’s heading for a cliff, of course you should stop them. If someone suggested that marrying outside your race was like heading for a cliff, you’d call them out on it. It’s their belief that’s wrong. This is the same situation.
You will not believe there is anything good about people of faith but you will overlook the flaws in others even if they are worse.
This threw me for a loop. Come on, you know this isn’t true: I’ve praised YOU before.
“This threw me for a loop. Come on, you know this isn’t true: I’ve praised YOU before.”
That’s true. I miscalculated. tgt I would like to accept “gayness”,if it didn’t conflict with Christianity. As it is,I’m not going to be bashing them over the head for be gay,I’m not repulsed by them,I’m not pointing a holier than thou finger at them,nor do I feel smugly superior to them. “Sin” simply means “missing the mark” and you don’t have to be some depraved sicko for that. I myself miss the mark. Everybody does. A gay couple presents no threat to me. There are much worse sins.
The biblical argument against homosexuality really depends on two passages in Leviticus (there are also several disputed passages, but they depend on disputed translations and heavy interpretation).
Leviticus, however, details a *lot* of “crimes” that have absolutely nobody up in arms. For example, Leviticus 20:27 demands that anyone acting as a medium or a fortuneteller should be put to death. Leviticus 21:7 demands that any woman who engages in prostitution (or fornication, by some translations)) be put to death if her father is a member of the clergy. Leviticus 20:9 demands that anyone who curses either of their parents should be put to death. Leviticus 24:10-16 places the death penalty on any curse by the name of God.
I could go on and on, but I think it’s pretty clear that our civilization does not even begin to come close to regarding that book as a clear guide to how we should do things.
This comment reveals a big consistency concern I have for the homosexual debate.
If we are going to impose our religious beliefs via legislation, there’s a heap more that certainly ought to be pushed.
I don’t see a big push against co-habitation or against other sex outside of marriage, or countless other items that could be argued as counter-civic behavior.
“I could go on and on, but I think it’s pretty clear that our civilization does not even begin to come close to regarding that book as a clear guide to how we should do things.”
Yes,but Christians do not observe the Mosaic law. If we did the early church would have practiced those things. I have a problem with those things myself and have yet to resolve them. Jesus commands to the church were simple,”Love the Lord your God with all your strength and mind and love your neighbor as yourself.” If you obey these,you have fulfilled the Law and Prophets(the 10 Commandments) You will automatically be doing God’s will. That’s why hatred is not on my to do list.
So, if you’re throwing out Leviticus, what in the bible are you going on? Paul’s direct reference to Leviticus?
“So, if you’re throwing out Leviticus, what in the bible are you going on? Paul’s direct reference to Leviticus?”
No,of course not. 2 Tim.3 :16 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”
Matt.5:17 “”Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_OldTestamentLaw.htm
Okay. So…you’re saying that the law still applies now…when you just said “Yes,but Christians do not observe the Mosaic law.”
Which rules are still in and which rules are out? How do you decide?
(As an aside, while it does make sense for fallible human laws to change with the times, it makes no sense for laws to change if the progenitor of them is infallible.)
“Which rules are still in and which rules are out? How do you decide?”
The 10 are universal. The Mosaic Law regarding sacrificing,stoning,foods,no longer apply as they were designed to 1) Show people how far short they would always fall and 2) Paved the way to Jesus Christ whose death,burial,and resurrection fulfilled the law. Prior to his death,the Mosaic law was still in effect and even though the Pharisees followed it religiously and then some,Jesus still called them a brood of vipers because they were self righteous persecutors,they also believed observing the Mosaic law would save them even though they were evil.. It,wouldn’t. It only pointed the way however those who lived righteously who died before Jesus were included in salvation as Christ went to them after the resurrection to lead them out of Sheol.
Apostle Paul was the chief ambassador for Christ. He explains how we are not under the Mosaic law.
Jesus commands love your God and love your neighbor like you love yourself. He said all the Law and Prophets are wrapped up in these two.
I don’t follow. Adulterers should be stoned, but adultery is still bad. Stoning doesn’t seem to be a criteria for laws to be thrown out. Or are you saying the punishments are gone, but the moral condemnation is still there? In that case, you can’t intermarry with people not of the Jewish race.
You have a mezuzah on your door, right? That’s required by mosaic law, and it has nothing to do with sacrificing,stoning, or foods. You don’t ever wear pants, right?
I could go on and on in reference to both sides. There’s only somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 laws originally, so it’s not indefinite, but it sure looks like your delineation doesn’t apply.
(Another aside. Doesn’t Dueteronomy say that the laws can’t be added to or removed. Wouldn’t changing them be God breaking God’s word…or is God allowed to do that?)
Galations 2:16 “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. ”
This may help explain it better than I can. Keep in mind I Cor.2:14 “But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 🙂
Forgot the link…http://rcg.org/articles/lg.html
karla,
Different people interpret scripture in different ways. I wanted to know what it means to you. If you can’t actually explain what the rules are, then there aren’t rules. You just have rationalization.
The link doesn’t give a clear position on mosaic law. The closest I see is where it says the 10 commandments were not part of mosaic law, and people who think God rejected the 10 commandments* are wrong. It doesn’t ever explicitly say mosaic law is gone, but it’s pretty close to implied.
*This also seems like a strawman to avoid the issue. I can’t think of any Christian who rejects the 10 commandments.
“*This also seems like a strawman to avoid the issue. I can’t think of any Christian who rejects the 10 commandments.”
That’s your perception because I didn’t intend it as a strawman. The rules are clear,at least to me, regarding this. I think I listed some of Apostle Paul referencing this too.
No,I can’t think of any Christians who reject the 10 nor anyone else either regarding such things as lying,stealing,murder,etc. Those are universal. And it is true that Christians will interpret differently but the all agree regarding the salvation through Jesus except for maybe the most liberal ones. I,for instance,have come to question the permanence of hell,eternal punishment. It seems to have been introduced by Catholics. Would a God who has a strong sense of justice and who says the punishment must fit the crime doom a good person who didn’t accept Jesus in this life to eternal torture? Or any torture for that matter. Folks like me are labeled heretics for daring to question such things. Because there are so many different teachings,I teach myself through study as best I can which is not the same as private interpretation but adhering to teachers that I believe are closest to the truth. That’s all I can do.
1 John 2:27 But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true–it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.
karla,
I was attacking your link as bringing up a strawman as a minor point in my general criticism of your position. It was the link that suggested that some Christians deny the 10 commandments. I was pointing out that that made it a questionable resource.
As for actual problems I pointed out, you said this: “The rules are clear,at least to me, regarding this. I think I listed some of Apostle Paul referencing this too.”
I pointed out What I saw were clear issues with the rule you stated:
Your rule: “The 10 are universal. The Mosaic Law regarding sacrificing,stoning,foods,no longer apply”. The rest was explaining the reasoning for the rule and the sourcing of it.
My complaints:
“Adulterers should be stoned, but adultery is still bad. Stoning doesn’t seem to be a criteria for laws to be thrown out. Or are you saying the punishments are gone, but the moral condemnation is still there? In that case, you can’t intermarry with people not of the Jewish race.
You have a mezuzah on your door, right? That’s required by mosaic law, and it has nothing to do with sacrificing,stoning, or foods. You don’t ever wear pants, right?”
If the rules are clear to you, can you explain to me how they apply in the 4 cases above (adultery, intermarriage, mezuzah hanging, females wearing pants)? The first 2 require death, and we don’t do death for either anymore, but the second is generally accepted while the first isn’t. What’s the difference? The last 2 don’t require stoning or sacrificing or foods, but they don’t seem to apply any more. How do they fit the rule you wrote?
““Adulterers should be stoned, but adultery is still bad. Stoning doesn’t seem to be a criteria for laws to be thrown out. Or are you saying the punishments are gone, but the moral condemnation is still there? In that case, you can’t intermarry with people not of the Jewish race.
You have a mezuzah on your door, right? That’s required by mosaic law, and it has nothing to do with sacrificing,stoning, or foods. You don’t ever wear pants, right?”
If the rules are clear to you, can you explain to me how they apply in the 4 cases above (adultery, intermarriage, mezuzah hanging, females wearing pants)? The first 2 require death, and we don’t do death for either anymore, but the second is generally accepted while the first isn’t. What’s the difference? The last 2 don’t require stoning or sacrificing or foods, but they don’t seem to apply any more. How do they fit the rule you wrote?”
I’m not understanding what you mean. What does wearing pants,etc.have to do with the 10 Commandments?
The 10 say you shall not commit adultery. The Mosaic law says you will be stoned for it. If Christendom believed the Mosaic law was still in effect then they wouldn’t believe that Jesus had come. They’d still be waiting and wouldn’t be Christians. They’d be Jewish converts.
Karla,
I’m not talking about the 10 commandments. That’s irrelevant. We’re talking about which things in mosaic law stay and which go. In Mosaic law, women couldn’t wear pants. In Mosaic law, the mezuzah must be hung on the door. You said the mosaic law related to sacrifice, foods, and stoning is gone, as differentiator from other mosaic law (like about homosexuality) that is still in effect.
I’m trying to see how these rules are about sacrifice, foods, and stoning. It looks to me like you’re unaware of what was actually in mosaic law. You’re just backing the sins that were taught to you, and ignoring the ones that weren’t with a rationalization.
tgt I would like to accept “gayness”,if it didn’t conflict with Christianity.
This shows the danger of religion (and any other non-evidence based belief). That homosexuality is naturally occurring is fact. When you’re left to choose between fact and belief, you reject the fact in favor of the belief. If homosexuality is missing the mark, then some people are born unable to possibly hit the mark. If your religion/beliefs said men were better than women, would you judge a woman as sinful for having a penis? Maybe before we knew how sex was determined, people could believe this, but now? It’d be horrible.
Doesn’t this argument ultimately boil down to getting tax breaks and other monetary benefits from the government?
It boils down to the language of Brown v. Bd of Education, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson. “Separate is inherently unequal.” Disparate treatment is state sponsored discrimination, and validates bias.
Ok…
What I’m getting at:
Why does the government give kick backs anyway for what is ultimately a religious institution?
Because “ultimately” is an improper qualifier.
Marriage has become a social institution independent of religious belief.
Marriage is a social institution that sets up costs for the parties, but has benefits for society as a whole. As such, the government has decided to create incentives to counterbalance the costs.
At least…that’s the way the argument goes. I vacillate back and forth between backing government benefits for marriage and thinking the government should get out of it completely.
I look at it like the mortgage interest deduction. Their are big upfront costs to buying a house that impedes people from doing it, but home ownership is tied to stable communities, so the government has created incentives for people to take the plunge.
My short answer while I’m at work:
“Ultimately” is not an improper qualifier.
*marriage* as a legal union between two individuals as it relates to property laws of course must rightly be extended to homosexuals.
*marriage* as something that ‘benefits society’, that depends on how you rationalize the societal ‘benefits’. But my answer that should marriages receive special benefits, the answer is NO (heterosexual and homosexual alike).
My problem with “ultimately” is that it highlights one facet of marriage , when other facets apply much more. It’s a technically true qualifier, but it’s misleading in this context. That’s what I meant by improper.
I could have also written “because it’s original use in Judeo-Christian culture does not determine what it means now”.
That’s why you shouldn’t assume I meant an exculsively Judeo-Christian use…
I’d argue that if we don’t assume a Judeo-Christian tradition, then marriage can’t even technically be said to be ultimately a religious institution.
I’m perfectly fine taking this as a completely off-thread topic, if you so desire.
But in the interest of taking this discussion down the road it needs to go, we need not expound on that. Lest a spiral occur.
Reply
That would have come soon, but work lasted longer than expected. Then kiddo had to get to volleyball practice. And newborn kiddo had a series of emergencies that needed attending to. (emergencies from an infant perspective…routine from an adult perspective).
Needless to say, the response was put together sporadically throughout the evening, but is well crafted non-the-less.
Because the social purpose of marriage is even more logical than the religious one. As so many have argued ‘marriage wasn’t always about love’ – it never was, until very recently. It’s always been about provding an incentive for men to stay and protect the children they sire – both so that society does not have to bear the cost of doing so, and because smaller family groups have proven far more capable at producing stable, productive citizens; society certainly benefits from those. Society benefits from it, therefore it endorses it, and is wise to keep the institution as stable and strong as possible. The alternative is chaos – and no society can stand chaos – they are embodiments of order.
The core definition of marriage has remained unchanged at least since the time of our founders. Since then, we’ve added additional strictures and rules to that core definition – some of which remain, some have gone away; but that core definition has remained the same. If the courts rule that a small – but vocal – group has the right to alter that core definition, then in doing so, it must allow ANY group to do so – to do otherwise would be unequality. If this group may, any group may.
It’s hazardous to consider shifting a cornerstone that has held steady for many years, and such should not be considered without very good cause. It’s foolishness indeed to argue that a cornerstone can be shifted without affecting all that has been built upon it. And even if it can be proven – which it has not even been attempted, to my knowledge – that THIS shift will move it onto more stable soil, the fact that in order to do so you grant permission for it to be moved again and again you must prove that any and all shifts resulting from this decision will move it onto more stable soil than where it currently stands. Again, we are not talking about a piece of paper or a tax break at stake here – Marriage creates the family unit, which is the central building block of nearly all civilization on earth. Fire, nothing – we’re playing with plutonium here.
We need to either create a separate classification to allow people to enjoy the social benefits of marriage – which may or may not be hazardous to the state of marriage by itself, but it’s certainly LESS hazardous than altering all marriage everywhere – or have a reasoned, careful, honest discussion about the real purposes, possibilities, and consequences of doing so – and leave all the emotional arguments, name-calling, and slight-of-hand out of the discussion entirely.
You have a major premise wrong, so there’s no point in dealing with the rest of your statement.
You claim that a core premise (if not the core premise) of marriage has been about making sure that any kids that result from a pairing have 2 parents. Post-menopausal women have always been allowed to marry, as have infertile people, and since the advent of birth control, early marriages are also often entered into with no intent to have sired kids.
Either marriage has already moved away from the core you claim, or the core you claim was never a core.
Marriage is about maintaining the products of sexual intercourse. In order to ensure that the greatest number of children were born within it’s bounds, strong social mores were established requiring either celibacy or marriage. Since infertility could seldom be established while remaining celibate, infertility was rarely an issue before the vows were taken – and was one of the few acceptable reasons for dissolving the marriage once discovered.
Since the advent of birth control has reduced the chances of pregnancy it’s true that it’s easier to have a marriage that does not create children. However, this late development does not alter the original – and unique – purpose of marriage. Over time, additional rules and meanings were tacked onto this core definition – sometimes it aided in power maintenence, or finances, or love, or social expectaions – but it has always, ALWAYS been about controlling, maintaining, and raising the products of that unique interaction of men and women.
My presentation of this theory may have been adapted a bit in order to fit within my worldview, but it’s on the whole a rather accepted one in sociological circles. What do all marriage rules and customs have in common across time and culture? Sex and children.
Except as noted with post menopausal women, your argument is bullshit. If allowing that (and birth control) hasn’t been a problem, then gay marriage isn’t a problem (with reference to sired kids).
This isn’t a hard concept. You are rationalizing, nothing more.
As a second point, your idea that sired kids are more important than adopted kids is pretty horrible.
[…] have a reasoned, careful, honest discussion about the real purposes, possibilities, and consequences of doing so – and leave all the emotional arguments, name-calling, and slight-of-hand out of the discussion entirely.
Aside from the dangerous “name-calling”, this statement applies generally. I object to “banning name-calling” as that is often twisted to stop the oppressed and discriminated against from accurately describing the oppression and discrimination. Right now in the Atheist community, sexists are complaining that people calling out sexism is causing rifts, when it’s the sexist behavior that is actually the problem.
I don’t know, and I seriously wonder why the Federal government really needs to know my marital status at all.
Reasoning already in the responses to tex. This is an issue where there really are good arguments on both sides.
While Jacks says “Almost all the incidents listed by Inquiring Mind are per se wrongful, and have been recognized as such,” I’d like to point out a couple that are clearly appropriate behavior by the so called thugs:
Then there is the attempts to expel Julea Ward and Jennifer Keeton from counseling programs – because their worldview was informed by the same sort of Christianity.
The removals were not based on the Ward and Keeton’s worldviews. The removals were based on their flat out refusal to do their jobs. Lying about situations to try to tar your opponents doesn’t help you, instead it shows you to be untrustworthy.
“The legal assault on Elane Photography and other businesses run by Christians who aren’t saying they cannot have their wedding or commitment ceremony, but are asking they not be forced to take part in it – even if it is photographing or baking a cake.”
This is suggesting that businesses should be allowed to discriminate however they want… say with a “no blacks allowed” policy. “Sure, you can be black, but you can’t make me take part in serving you food.” It’s a complete nonstarter of an argument.
—
Jack did a good job of explaining the issues with Inquiring Mind’s general argument (that some people’s bad behavior indicts everyone), but Jack decided not to talk about why someone would even think the argument was valid. There’s an easy answer to this question: bias. When people don’t like group X or position Y, they have a tendency to treat behavior by X or in favor of Y more negatively than they would if it was done by a group they like or are in favor of.
Based on Inquiring Mind’s listing of two types of appropriate actions as examples of thuggery, we can conclude that he is letting his biases override his rationality. He likely doesn’t actually believe in the principle that if there are bad actors in a group, the whole group is bad. He’s really just attempting to rationalize his belief.
Tgt—I agree with all of this, and I think the distinctions you point out were also embodied in older posts about both the counselors and the gay couple thrown out of the dress shop.
I didn’t think you’d disagree. I actually wrote it first as a “Jack, I’m surprised you let these go unchallenged, as you’ve written about both before” post, before I changed it to “additional information that Jack decided not to write about.” I figure you ignored them as you chose a different focus for your post.
So there is no freedom of association or conscience if it conflicts with the latest silly lefty fad?
Freedom of association and conscience meaning freedom to reduce groups of law abiding people to second class citizens by stigmatizing them by excluding them and shunning them? This would indicate that you think of the Declaration as a ‘silly fad.’
Marginalizing and shunning. You mean like the way the Boy Scouts are shunned and marginalized for their religious beliefs and rules against gay scout masters. Yes the gay marriage movement is narcissistic and silly. The movement gives the left a chance to vent their viciousness and feel good about it. They get to pretend that they are victims or brave civil rights crusaders. Give me a break. IM is correct the viciousness and lawlessness is a feature of the movement not a bug.
I am a libertarian on these issues. My opinion is that gays should be able to associate and contract relationships in any way they see fit, with full legal protection and the sanction of any church who is willing to bless the union. If that is what the gay marriage movement was about I would have no problem. But that isn’t its aim. The movement wants to get special legal status so it can launch an ongoing witch hunt. The goal is to drive anyone who disagrees with their agenda out of the public square, sue and impose legal sanctions on institutions and individuals who don’t share their worldview.
Tolerance my ass. I’ve seen what leftist tolerance looks like.
And the movement really is silly. It is basically the equivalent of Mayor Bloomberg’s soda ban. Dealing with real problems in the US is hard and not very glamorous. That is why we spend time on soda bans and gay marriage. You can’t build a political legacy by making sure New York’s sewers work and the trash gets picked up on time. But you can gain a high media profile by taking on the evils of big soda. Gay marriage is the same thing. It is a chance to gain accolades and play civil rights hero without actually doing anything brave. The reality is that gays are a very small and well treated minority with many protections and powerful advocates in government and society.
Absolutely correct. Will be soon be seeing movements for “reparations” or compensation for “years of discrimination?” Will we be seeing more grade school lessons on how to have gay sex, from which one will not be able to remove one’s child? I would not be surprised.
” If that is what the gay marriage movement was about I would have no problem. But that isn’t its aim. The movement wants to get special legal status so it can launch an ongoing witch hunt. The goal is to drive anyone who disagrees with their agenda out of the public square, sue and impose legal sanctions on institutions and individuals who don’t share their worldview. ”
That’s what I was trying to get at earlier about militant gays. To believe there aren’t anti-straight gays as well as anti-gay straights is denying reality. I don’t want to be on the receiving end of someone’s vendetta,thanks. But I don’t want to brand all gays as such…or even most.
Walrus has laid out exactly why I asked the question in my “Comment of the Day”:
Is the thuggery/coercion and thought control a “bug” associated with the push for gay marriage, or is it a “feature” that comes with the enactment of gay marriage?
If the thuggery/coercion/thought control was a “bug”, we’d see a serious effort by same-sex marriage proponents to address cases like Elane Photography, Julea Ward, and Jennifer Keeton, so that we would not be hurtling towards coerced expression or seeing counseling students threatened with expulsion over their religious beliefs.
A “bug”, by definition, is an unexpected problem with a product that a responsible, ethical company seeks to fix in a timely manner. They would be coming up with a way to fix the problems that are clearly emerging.
A “feature”, on the other hand, is something that is a part of a product that is meant to be there. It is not necessarily documented (See the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undocumented_feature). At a minimum, features are tolerated, or intended. Generally, they don’t get fixed or addressed.
Given the cases I have described, and then , and also adding the
The first post from tgt, particularly the part where he said, “There is no moral, decent opposing viewpoint on this issue,” and constantly referred to the other side as “bigots,” as well as the cases I cited in the Comment of the Day (plus the shooting at the Family Research Council that occurred in August, 2012), have pretty much answered the question:
The coercion, thuggery, and though control are, in all likelihood, probably features of the push for same-sex marriage – and arguably, gay rights in general, and when same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, they will then look for the next fight – after all, they want to settle scores with the bigots.
So to call people you disagree with bigots because they favor policy that discriminates against lgbt people is beyond the pale; but if someone disagrees with you about anti-discrimination law, then it’s completely okay to call them a “thug”?
By the way, many people have been fired by Christians for being gay, for having a gay relative, or for just having pro-gay views. The anti-gay rights side has not addressed this in any serious way, other than to defend it. By your standards, this makes the anti-gay-rights side guilty of “thuggery/coercion/thought control.” Right?
“By the way, many people have been fired by Christians for being gay, for having a gay relative, or for just having pro-gay views. ”
I recall before my x-husband and I were married we were denied a rental because we weren’t married. I wonder if we were a gay couple and married if it would have made a difference? Mmmm…prolly not.
You are only half right.
The latter was about a flat-out refusal to do a job; the former was not.
I overstated it very, very slightly. If I tell my boss that if I’m assigned tasks I don’t agree with, I’m going to do intentionally shoddy work, that’s pretty damn close to a flat out refusal to do my job.
I think some of the comments indicate there is tension between freedom and equality. I certainly hope we as a culture have not ‘chosen’ equality over freedom as I think you end up loosing both when you legislate equality. I think there is a way for states and the federal government to allow same sex couples to marry without forcing churches or religious personal business to support these arrangements.
We have clearly chosen equality over freedom except when purely personal associations and preferences are involved. And I’d agree with that resolution.
We may have made such a choice in other cases, but I think you’re wrong to say that such a decision is necessary here. You said:
This is an ethical conflict, where two important ethical principles are in direct opposition: religious freedom and equal rights.
I disagree. This is an ethical conflict where religious views conflict with equal rights. Not the same thing as religious freedom conflicting with equal rights. Religious freedom is the right to practice the religion of your choice or to choose not to practice any religion. It is the state refusing to sanction only one religious view. The state’s refusal to recognize gay marriage solely on the basis of a particular religious view is contrary to the principles of religious freedom.
State sanction of gay marriage would have zero effect on a citizen’s ability to practice (or not practice) the religion of his/her choice and it would have zero effect on whether or how religious institutions define or deal with marriage within their communities. As I see it, religious freedom and equal rights are on the same side here.
A perfect example of how the state’s approach to marriage may differ from a religious approach to marriage and yet the two can co-exist, because of (rather than at the loss of) religious freedom: divorce. The state recognizes divorce. The Roman Catholic Church does not. A couple married in a Roman Catholic ceremony may be divorced by the state and go on to remarry others (or not) as they see fit, but only from the perspective of the state. That same couple remains a couple in the eyes of the church and are not free to marry another unless and until they obtain an annulment from the church. Indeed, if a church member obtains a civil divorce and remarries without an annulment, the church can refuse that member participation in the sacraments. Other religions also prohibit divorce and/or have special rules about when they may and may not be obtained. In all these instances, the state does not/cannot force the religious institution to recognize the state granted divorce because religious freedom precludes such intervention.
Similarly, state sanctioned gay marriage would do nothing to change the marriage rules of any religious institution nor would it preclude any individual from living within those rules if he/she so chooses.
I was posting at the same time in response to brian, but your comment is much better, despite the lack of clear paragraph breaks.
Well, gee. Thanks, tgt. Sorry about the formatting; I draft in Word and haven’t discovered how to get the formatting to transfer to the comment box.
It won’t. At least not easily. Word uses a different character set than wordpress. Letters translate, but the magic spacing doesn’t. I draft long posts in notepad to avoid word’s magic character spacing. You could probably use that as a quick intermediary for cleanup (or any low level text editor).
Or just ask me to fix it, which I am happy to do.
I agree with your analysis, but many do not. They regard, as in the evolution debate, the government’s approval of gay marriage over traditional marriage as the government rejecting and specifically disapproving of religions that hold otherwise, because the new policy will be embodied in education and other aspects of daily life. Once the government gets involved with marriage, it can’t be neutral. As I argue here until I’m blue in the face, laws are one way a culture designates right and wrong, and if the government says “gay marriage is as good as any other,” it is also saying that religions that teach otherwise are wrong, unjust, biased or bad. Hence a conflict.
And there is validity to the argument that the government will then proceed to apply pressure to prevent people from teaching otherwise. It has happened in England, it has happened in Canada, and it has happened here. There’s very little reassurance to a mindless ‘No, it won’t!’ in response when we can look at $1.3 million dollars a day in fines for a company that dares to disagree with the government in another arena of religious freedom…
Religion and government are entwined in England. Religious leaders are official members of government and contribute to setting policy. That’s not a good example. Canada, also, isn’t a good example, as they don’t have the same concept of freedom of speech.
A real example of what is likely to occur would be what’s happened in the U.S. since the government went against religion and allowed interracial marriage. The government does not punish independent actors for teaching that interracial marriage is a no no. There are also watchdog organizations like the ACLU that work as checks in cases where the government does encroach on free speech rights.
Your comment about fines for disagreeing with the government is completely false.
False? So Hobby Lobby is not expected to pay 1.3 million per day because the owners of the company refuse to obey with the government’s dictate that they violate their religious beliefs in order to remain in business? What joyous news! Last I had heard, they were expected to comply, and had indicated that they would not – wonderful to hear that the government has relented.
Disagreeing with the government is not the same thing as not following the law. Hobby Lobby is absolutely allowed to disagree with the government. Hobby Lobby is absolutely allowed to teach that birth control is evil. They wouldn’t be fined for either.
You are either intentionally trying to mislead, or have no understanding of the difference between speech and action. Whichever the case, your opinion on this matter is shown to be worthless.
Following the law requires Hobby Lobby to violate their religious beliefs… unless you don’t believe that $1.3 million a day represents coercion, and a direct assault on freedom of religion. But from your comments, maybe you don’t. Perhaps you think it’s fine to have certain religious beliefs, as long is one doesn’t act upon them.
I’m not touching on the more salient argument you’re having with tgt, but we do technically already have restrictions on religious practices; I can’t go around cutting out people’s hearts in order to appease the sun god.
Again, straw man in its extremist example. I repeat my earlier comment on the metaphor taught to me by a certain political science professor: your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins. No one is suggesting that evisceration is a permitted religious practice (although murdering live infants “wrongly born” after botched abortions seems to be OK, according to the leftist sponsored religion of Planned Parenthood).
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/03/44203-shocking-planned-parenthood-endorses-post-birth-abortion/
Following the law requires Hobby Lobby to violate their religious beliefs… unless you don’t believe that $1.3 million a day represents coercion, and a direct assault on freedom of religion.
Following the law requires any literalist Christian from violating their beliefs all the time. Like the beliefs about stoning people for all sorts of “bad” conduct. Are the laws against vigilante justice a direct assault on freedom of religion? Of course not.
Aaron tried to conflate “teaching that X is wrong” with “following a law requiring X”.
Perhaps you think it’s fine to have certain religious beliefs, as long is one doesn’t act upon them.
You’re conflating ethics with law.
I suggest there are certain religious beliefs that it is LEGAL to have, but illegal to act out. It’s perfect legal to believe in ritual sacrifice of virgins, as long as one doesn’t actually start killing virgins.
Peter,
The sun god is not a strawman. You really don’t understand that term. The sun god is a counterexample to your claim that a law the requires someone to act in a way against their religious beliefs is necessarily a problem.
Interesting.
I agree with your analysis as well. I suppose where I may differ is in forcing a wedding photographer to not discriminate against his/her clients. While I believe gay/lesbian couples should have access to both the legal and cultural institutions of marriage, I do not think we should be in the business of forcing individuals in their personal lives to treat everyone as equal.
I do not support state enforcement of bigotry and segregation as represented by the Jim Crow laws, but I also do not support state enforcement of non-discrimination when it comes to individuals. Both represent an infringement on the liberty of people to engage in their personal lives as they see fit. If a business wants to discriminate against a group of people I see no reason to use power of the state to stop them, the market can and will adapt.
I do not think we should be in the business of forcing individuals in their personal lives to treat everyone as equal.
Nobody has suggested such. Business is not private life.
[T]he market can and will adapt.
Except it doesn’t always. If people are racist, then being racist is profitable. The market isn’t a magic wand.
Even when markets do adapt, it can take multiple generations and countless bad actions before they do. It’s brutal, not ethical.
Business can be private or public, is that the distinction you are making?
Except passing laws does not stop bad actions on their own either. The same arguments you make against the adequacy of market forces can be made against legislative mandates, except market forces don’t diminish freedom while legislative mandates do.
The choice is not between imperfect market responses and perfect government responses, it’s between imperfect market responses and imperfect government responses.
Public vs private is the distinction I’m making. Can you give me an example of a private business? If there is one, I think discrimination should be allowed (even if it’s bad), just like private clubs.
Except passing laws does not stop bad actions on their own either. The same arguments you make against the adequacy of market forces can be made against legislative mandates, except market forces don’t diminish freedom while legislative mandates do.
Passing laws does not stop bad actions. Enforcing those laws severely limits bad actions. There’s a major deterrence effect. Are you suggesting that we should get rid of all of laws? I mean, they’re no better than the social marketplace, and the social marketplace doesn’t diminish freedom.
The choice is not between imperfect market responses and perfect government responses, it’s between imperfect market responses and imperfect government responses.
Strawman AND false equivalency. Nice! The choice is between market responses that we know will let significant bad behavior be rewarded and government responses that will greatly cut down on that bad behavior. Again, apply your comment to all laws to see the stupidity.
While I agree that enforcement of laws severely limits bad actions, I would also suggest that greed and the pursuit of profits can also limit bad actions. Free trade/free enterprise has done more to eliminate racial bigotry than any law has.
It’s not a straw man argument nor a false equivalence, we just disagree on the efficacy of government and markets. I was pointing out the common flaw of people finding faults in how markets respond while calling for a government solution to the problem without acknowledging that governments are in many cases affected by the same human flaws that cause poor market responses, not to mention many additional flaws like associated with median voter theories, rational ignorance, interest group pressures…
Free trade/free enterprise has done more to eliminate racial bigotry than any law has.
The laws aren’t about eliminating thought, they’re about changing action. Fail.
It’s not a straw man argument nor a false equivalence, we just disagree on the efficacy of government and markets.
Instead of responding to my argument, you responded to a made up argument that is easy to refute. That’s the definition of a straw man.
The false equivalence came because you ignored the differences. Yes, both market forces and laws are not perfect, but that doesn’t mean they are equal. You’re intentionally ignoring the differences based on your preconceived desired result. You’d never say: “The choice is not between imperfect Jeffrey Dahmer and perfect Mother Theresa, it’s between imperfect Jeffrey Dahmer and imperfect Mother Theresa.”
The argument you made was invalid. Defending it is just digging a deeper ditch for yourself.
“You’d never say: “The choice is not between imperfect Jeffrey Dahmer and perfect Mother Theresa, it’s between imperfect Jeffrey Dahmer and imperfect Mother Theresa.”
The argument you made was invalid. Defending it is just digging a deeper ditch for yourself.
I’m not going to say your conclusion is true or false. But your methodology is absolutely abhorrent.
Your reductio ad absurdum invalidates its own logic by utilizing loaded language.
Loaded language? What loaded language? The point of reductio ad absurdum is to take a case where the logic obviously doesn’t work to point out the invalidity of the logic. That’s what I did here.
Brian was arguing that if two things are both flawed, then they are equal. I was pointing out the silliness of this argument. My argument was not saying that government is like Mother Theresa and the free market is like Jeffrey Dahmer…I was attacking the general principle brian was using.
No, I gathered your intended loaded language based on your prior comment up a few before the reductio ad absurdum “The choice is between market responses that we know will let significant bad behavior be rewarded and government responses that will greatly cut down on that bad behavior. Again, apply your comment to all laws to see the stupidity.” Which clearly indicates where you were going with the language you selected.
Could you please reread the chain of logic?
I suggested that B could do things where A fell down. brian suggested that since both A and B are flawed, we shouldn’t use B. He ignored the benefits that B has over A. They weren’t part of his comment. As such, I created a parallel situation where X and Y were both flawed, but where he never would ignore the benefits of Y over X. It was an attack on his underlying idea that since both are flawed, whatever differences they have don’t matter.
That was all that was intended, and since I haven’t been calling the free market evil and government behavior saintly, I thought that should be clear. I apologize that it wasn’t. I may have chosen my words wrong.
I’ve made my point clear now I hope.
Then therefore it is loaded language and by extension begging the question. You assume in your premises that by analogy B DOES have benefits over A. Then you reach the conclusion that B DOES have benefits over A.
The disconnect you and Brian are having is that y’all aren’t arguing from the same premises.
You would need first demonstrate why you think B has benefits over A, cuz he may very well come back that A has benefits over B. And he may very well be right.
tex,
Your first paragraph is just flat out wrong. As I said, I’m not making that analogy. The analogy was making the point that not everything that’s flawed is equal: the differences matter.
Your second and third paragraphs are closer to on point, but miss something. I suggested the government has benefits the free market doesn’t. Instead of challenging those benefits, brian made an argument that all things that are flawed are equal. I responded to the argument he actually made. Brian COULD have argued that he doesn’t believe the government can improve over the market in relation to discrimination, but he didn’t, unless he does make that argument, there’s no need for me to respond to it.
(Note: since I’m the one claiming benefits of the government, if challenged on that, burden of proof is on me. I wasn’t challenged on that statement. I was left with a much more general argument that was easy to dismiss.)
Public versus private in the sense of publicly owned versus privately held. So Chipotle is public but Roy Rogers is private.
Equivocation. Both are still businesses that are open to the public.
If gays see marriage as a right then let them. People in this nation are guaranteed freedom and rights. One of those rights is freedom of religion no matter how odious that is to some people. If I’m a photographer I would do a gay marriage ceremony. Why not? I’m not breaking any commandment and their money is just as good as the next person. But,if it goes against my photographer friend’s conscience,she shouldn’t be forced. This coercion has less to do with rights as it does to bullying and forcing that mean old Christian to go against her convictions. And someone will say so if your religion allows boiling babies in oil the state should look the other way? That is so stupid but I have heard such arguments. It’s just another ploy to try to eradicate religion.
Brian,I’m not addressing you exclusively here.
If it goes against a restaurant owner’s conscience, she shouldn’t be forced to serve black people. This coercion has less to do with rights as it does to bullying and forcing that mean old Christian to go against her convictions.
It’s an idiotic position, but it’s common. You’re used to having special privileges. You’re used to having your bigoted views treated as okay. You’re used to a special status. You think that a revocation of that special status is bullying.
It’s understandable that you would think this, but it doesn’t make it accurate.
“If it goes against a restaurant owner’s conscience, she shouldn’t be forced to serve black people. ”
If I were the restaurant owner that wouldn’t be an issue. But that’s me. We’re not talking apartheid here.
It doesn’t matter what you would do in someone’s position. You’re suggesting that they’re allowed to do whatever they want.
And no, we’re not talking apartheid here. Apartheid is government enforced segregation. While that’s been talked about elsewhere in this thread (negatively by everyone), there’s no reason to bring that up here.
Again, straw man. Black-“ness” in this context is not in the same category as gay marriage. It might be appropriate to see the analogy between not serving a black person, and not serving a gay person, but that is not the issue at hand, nor is it one that ANYONE here who is opposed to gay marriage has suggested is appropriate.
I wrote this up already, but:
“My religion says that black people shouldn’t eat at restaurants. Sure, they can be black, but I can’t get behind them eating outside their homes. I just don’t want to participate in something that is against my religious code.”
Now, being black in a restaurant IS directly akin to gay marriage.
You also don’t understand what a strawman is. Nobodies making up an inferior argument and poking holes in it.
I suppose the main argument against yours would be the differentiation between behavior and genetically determined physical appearance. However, that falls into a double standard of its own; what’s the true ethical difference between straights and gays being affectionate in public? Hell, they don’t even need to be affectionate; a simply slip of the tongue might be enough to damn them. Of course, there are places (like some schools) where any public displays of romance are banned, regardless of gender preference, and those at least get points for consistency.
But again, even if the argument that businesses have near-absolute freedom of association is as valid as the argument for near-absolute freedom of speech, I think it’s pretty clear that applying a double standard to gays and straights is unethical nevertheless.
The double standard has popped up in this thread already. Garlicfriesandbaseball just wanted the gays out of his face, not realizing (or caring) that the gays are no more in his face than are the straights.
A lot of that, I think, is the human tendency to better notice things which are “unusual”, so to speak. It’s part of the reason (among others) why people tend to overestimate the number of minorities. And of course, any type of public campaign for/against equal rights and acceptance inevitably annoy at least a few people; same goes for political campaigning in general.
” I think there is a way for states and the federal government to allow same sex couples to marry without forcing churches or religious personal business to support these arrangements.”
My husband and I were married at a courthouse. If you want a formal ceremony I would imagine there are liberal clergy who would accommodate you. Does civil unions offer the same benefits as marriage?
If this goes the same way as pharmacists forced to offer birth control it won’t bode well for conservative clergy.
This is one of the sticking points. Same-sex “marriage” would have less resistance if it wasn’t marriage. Marriage is and has been a religious sacrament. The government is involved with it because the government is involved with religion. Initially, the states were not prohibited from having established churches and many did until the mid 1800’s. The state was involved with marriage because marriage occurred in the official state churches. Once tax breaks and legal status was conferred based on the church’s sacrament of marriage, the federal government became entwined with religious doctrine.
If the states would issue a domestic partner status instead of married (meaning all couples would need such status, married or not), I think the resistance would be much less. It would also lessen the resistance when the inevitable push to allow polygamy occurs. In other words, get the federal and states government out of the religion business.
So, you’re suggesting that all states and the federal government remove the word “marriage” from their laws and replace it with “domestic partnership”? That’s the theoretical best case, but I think it’s even less likely to occur because (1) Religious people would throw even more of a fit that they’re being persecuted, and (2) people with non-religious marriages would probably not subscribe to the change.
1) I doubt it. Calling a state-sponsored and approved union by its correct name (for that is what it IS), and separating it from church sponsored “marriage” would probably ease the tension, not exacerbate it. 2) Irrelevant. The whole gay-marriage debate has brought into focus the various kinds of “marriages” which have existed heretofore. The ability to be more precise in determining one type from another due to the passage of human history does not invalidate the argument for doing so.
1) You completely missed what 1 was about. It wasn’t about separating out marriage and domestic partnerships in law, it was about removing the legal term marriage in favor of domestic partnerships. Your comment is irrelevant.
2) Again, it’s like you didn’t read the back and forth.
Huh? Non-sequiturs.
This is incoherent. It’s not a non sequitur to explain the context of a comment that you clearly missed. Are you trolling?
” In other words, get the federal and states government out of the religion business.”
Separation of church and state applies only to the church it seems. Your right. For eons marriage has been a religious sacrament and not just of Christianity. That’s why people are so opposed to gay marriage I suppose but as you say one can’t say that marriage in the US is really a religious institution anymore even if you’re married by a preacher unless you are religious. How many people wed without giving religion a thought? Doesn’t that violate the sacrament as well? It would be preferable if marriage were left to people of faith and since it is religious and the others could have their domestic partnerships. Of course,those who are already “married” would stay that way. It would be a giant mess to try and change that.
So, you think that all government based marriage benefits should be done away with, or are you creating a separate but equal term for the people who aren’t religious?
“So, you think that all government based marriage benefits should be done away with, or are you creating a separate but equal term for the people who aren’t religious?”
Used to be the church,or other religious institution,handled that but not now so I guess a separate but equal deal. The church used to take care of widows and orphans too.
Brown vs. Board of Ed. Separate but equal is not constitutional.
Brown vs. Board of Education is about segregation. Insisting that a domestic partnership with all the rights and privileges of marriage be called “marriage” is hardly the same thing. Only the most nit picky would have a problem with that. Like I said,I got married in a courthouse. If they called it domestic partnership I wouldn’t think I was any less joined to my husband. But if I were a Christian,and I am,I’d want to married which was originally a sacred institution.
Brown vs. Board of Ed did say that the separation is inherently unequal because of the cultural ramifications. When separated, the disfavored group is seen as lesser than the main group. “The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. “
Yup. Because this visualizes the correct role of religion on the one hand, and the role of the state on the other. It is only lately, with the issue of gay marriage, that such a need to distinguish the two has been brought into sharp relief. The benefits for which gays are asking (tax benefits, contract negotiations, and such) are, as I understand it, entirely answered by the establishment of civil unions, and indeed are relevant in matters that involve the state. That should be enough. Leave the concept of marriage, the 5000 year old institution which has been the ecclesiastically recognized union of man and woman until the last 20 years, well enough alone.
What is it about “separate is inherently unequal” that is so hard to grasp? I think the statement is elegant, unarguable, and true.
I can see that argument with the facts that were present in Brown v. Board of Education. But the facts connected with re-defining marriage are completely different.
A same-sex relationship’s intimacy is unable to produce a biological child (carrying 50% of chromosomes from each parent). It takes a sperm cell and and egg cell to initiate conception and the process of pregnancy. Two sperms cells cannot do it. Two egg cells cannot do it. That stuff I learned in elementary-school sex ed.
This is a fundamental difference that is NOT akin to banning inter-racial marriage.An inter-racial opposite-sex couple can still produce a biological child.
Race and sexual orientation are two very different things, and it is not unreasonable or unethical to handle them differently.
Indeed, the Sixth Circuit recognized that “marriage as it was recognized by the common law is constitutionally protected, but this
protection has not been extended to forms of marriage outside the common-law tradition” Vaughn v. Lawrenceburg Power Sys., 269 F.3d 703 at 711 (6th Cir. 2001)
But – as has already been pointed out to you – this is not a consistent standard in US law (or in marriage historically). Heterosexual couples who know they are unable to produce a biological child have their marriages recognized by the law. For instance, if a woman has had a hysterectomy, that won’t prevent her from getting legally married. Another example: The Supreme Court has ruled that convicts in prison have a Constitutional right to get married, even in cases where there is no chance that the convict could ever get the chance to have sex with their spouse.
Equal protection of the law prevents the state from saying “you gays can’t get married because you can’t produce a biological child” while at the same time allowing heterosexual couples who are just as unable to have a biological child to get married.
Facilitating reproduction is one thing marriage does in our culture, but it’s not the only thing. There are other aspects to marriage, such as kinship (marriage is one of only two ways for people who aren’t already close relatives to become each other’s close kin – the other is adoption), mutual support and responsibility, and (yes) love. Furthermore, it’s not only those parents who can biologically reproduce that benefit from marriage; marriage is also beneficial to families including adopted children.
Limiting marriage to only opposite-sex couples is a relic from a time when men and women were seen as having inherently and enormously different roles to play, and a time when homosexuals were seen as perverse, disgusting, inferior people. But we now live in a time when almost everyone agrees that it’s okay if a woman becomes a doctor or a lawyer, or a man becomes a househusband; and almost everyone agrees that prejudice against lesbian or gay people is wrong. (I’m sure you agree with me on both those counts). Without the idea of “separate spheres” for women and men, and without anti-gay ideology, there is no longer a logical foundation for limiting legal marriage to only heterosexual couples.
Your concern is again answered by the provision of civil unions. The union of same-sex partners can never be considered a marriage, unless you want to throw out the last 2000+ years of historical precedent (another giant experiment, a la GMO crops, for example, with unknown and unpredictable consequences going forward). The matter becomes much more complicated than just what one person contracts with another, when the raising of children is involved. In this regard, society as a whole, for its present, and for its future, DOES have an overwhelming interest in the outcome.
Peter, that something has been around a long time does not mean we can never, ever risk changing it. Universal suffrage was a new thing until it was tried. Marriage that treated women as equals was new until it was tried. At one time, democracy itself was a new thing.
So “we can’t ever risk doing it, because it’s in some way new” is not a sensible argument, unless you’re willing to argue that all new things were bad and should never have been tried.
If same-sex marriage is harmful, either it is harmful only in a marginal fashion, in which case I don’t think it’s fair or consistent to oppose it. (Many other marriages are arguably harmful – for instance, it is said that interracial marriages have above-average divorce rates – but we don’t ban them for that reason.. It’s not justifiable to expect same-sex couples to be the only ones to make a sacrifice, when no similar sacrifice is ever demanded of heterosexual couples).
Or it’s harmful in a huge, catastrophic fashion, in which case, why can’t the harm be measured or proven? Massachusetts, the place in the US that has had same-sex marriage longest, also seems to have one of the healthiest marriage cultures in the whole country. How can you explain that, if same-sex marriage is so deadly?
As for civil unions, why not just call them “civil marriages” instead? After all, the word isn’t so important, right?
Your response is well-reasoned, and I agree that just because something is new does not make it not worth considering for adoption. However, the unanticipated effects of change can take decades to manifest. (A parallel example and discussion of the approval of GMO crops is for another time and place.) For example, the effects on the children of such unions, whether adopted or created through artificial means, have yet to be studied, notwithstanding that similar such studies often turn out to be biased from one viewpoint or another. It is fair to say that the children of conventional marriages characterized by high levels of interspousal conflict, for example, are already KNOWN to be adversely affected. One can look at this and say, “Why add yet another category of potentially conflicted children (because conflicted emotional development is a PREDICTABLE result of such unions)?” or one can say, “Why must gays be prevented from adoption (not civil unions per se) just because conflict is often detrimental to child development in conventional marriages? Why must the attempt to reduce such outcomes be carried on the backs of the gays?” When you ask the children of such unions how they feel about not having a “mommy” or a “daddy” BY INTENTION of his/her parents, and when neutral and non-directive inquiry can produce a satisfactory answer, then I think we will have the data we need. A conflicted environment for the upbringing of children is never something that should be chosen, or arguably permitted when it is quite predictable. Now, to be consistent, I will say that some conventional marriages can be “predicted” to bring a hostile and conflicted environment to the upbringing of children. Such individuals should probably be encouraged NOT to marry in the first place, but we live in a free society (and I mean a largely religion-free society as well), and, as one with libertarian leanings, I abhor the meddling of the state. We haven’t begun to discuss the 40% out-of-wedlock births, and the “intentional” denial of the opposite sex parent to such a child that often pertains. And so, where does that bring us? In the absence of a strong internal moral code, which historically has been the role of the Christian church in America to provide, and which was considered a necessary foundation for a free people by its Founders, there is little chance of redacting these various developments in late twentieth century and early twenty-first century America. I just see it as putting a few more nails in the coffin.
As for the civil unions themselves, I am not opposed to them as one of libertarian leanings, even though I may feel discomfort as a Christian (in those cases where such unions represent personal choices, and not the exigencies of biology). As I have discussed elsewhere, ecclesiastically sanctioned unions of man and woman have the precedent for use of the term “marriage” in my view, and “civil marriages” makes no sense to me, any more than the term “politically correct” can modify a term without irremediably altering its meaning.
1) But same-sex couples are ALREADY raising children, and have been doing so for many years, since long before any state in the US recognized same-sex marriages. Preventing same-sex marriages from being treated equally, legally, will not do a thing to prevent children from being raised by same-sex couples.
2) To quote the American Sociological Association, “The clear and consistent consensus in the social science profession is that across a wide range of indicators, children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents when compared to children raised by opposite-sex parents.” To quote the American Academy of Pediatrics, “There is no scientific basis for concluding that gay and lesbian parents are any less fit or capable than heterosexual parents, or that their children are any less psychologically healthy and well adjusted.”
3) If ti’s too risky to extend civil marriage – a category that has existed for at least a century – to same-sex couples because change can lead to unforeseen consequences thirty years down the road, then how can you advocate for something much newer, “civil unions”? How do you know that creating a “marriage-lite” category like “civil unions” won’t undermine marriage badly? How long will it be before heterosexual couples sue for the right to choose “civil unions” rather than marriage?
You can’t reasonably say that expanding the marriage franchise – something we’ve done several times before – is too risky to consider, while at the same time creating a brand-new category called “civil unions” without any concern for consequences. If new things are too risky, then you have to apply that standard consistently.
4) Although there is no rational argument or explanation for how same-sex marriage could hurt children, there are several obvious ways children of same-sex parents can be harmed by banning gay marriage.
For instance, a child who has international same-sex parents who cannot live and raise their child together, because the non-American parent is unable to immigrate to the US, is hurt by the parents’ inability to marry. A child who has one parent die, and is thrown into poverty because the remaining parent cannot receive their deceased partner’s social security survivor’s benefits, has been hurt by the parents’ inability to marry. A child whose parents split up, who would have remained together if they had been married, has been hurt by the parents’ inability to marry.
5) Speaking of harms to children, what about children who are themselves lgbt? (Many lgbt people know by the time they are 11 years old, and some know even earlier.) Robbing them of the expectation of being full members of society and of growing up to fall in love, get married, and form their own families harms them. Raising lgbt children in a society that considers them second-class citizens harms them. Equal marriage won’t fix that entirely, of course, but it is a necessary step.
6) You write:
Why does it matter if it makes sense to you? Maybe you don’t have a deep-down understanding of what a bar mitzvah really means to a Jewish family, but that doesn’t mean that you would support an attempt to ban bar mitzvahs.
For many lesbian and gay people, marriage is a deeply meaningful thing. In many churches and synagogues, marriage (including same-sex marriage) is an essential part of what they do.
It doesn’t have to be meaningful to you. You have freedom of religion, and freedom of thought; you are welcome to continue believing that same-sex marriages are nonsense. The issue here isn’t what you believe; it’s whether we’re going to have a government that treats people equally under the law.
1) The fact that same-sex couples are ALREADY raising children is irrelevant to whether such activity should be legalized. The same could be said for pedophilia.
2) Findings of the American Sociological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics are of interest, but not dispositive. When conscientious gay parents have a mutually supportive and loving relationship themselves, seek opposite sex role models for their children, and are sensitive and effective in dealing with the bullying and social approbation which often accompanies children of such relationships, an argument can be made that a reasonably healthy environment for raising children can exist. On the other hand, ANY remnants of prior promiscuous behavior, the “cruising” lifestyle, the acquisition of non-marital sexual partners, are highly detrimental to child development. viz: http://thisismarriage.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/the-effects-of-gay-marriage-on-children/ Insofar as legalization of same-sex unions provides a legally, publicly recognized and attractive alternative to such lifestyle, net benefits are likely. Insofar as legalization of same-sex unions allow for tax benefits, preservation of family privileges (visiting in hospital, health insurance coverage), the encouragement of STABILITY of the child-raising domestic environment becomes an overriding and positive factor as well. Nevertheless, I believe it is still too early to determine long-term effects, and not enough studies have been performed to evaluate them.
3) I look at “civil unions” as being the same as what you describe as “civil marriages.” The differences are semantics. My attempt was to differentiate ecclesiastical unions from civil unions. The entrenched term “marriage” in our society, having meanings of traditional man-woman civil unions, traditional man-woman religious unions, and now same-sex unions (whether civil or indeed sanctioned by some religious orders) confuses, and by including all under one rubric pretends that they are all somehow the same. They aren’t. Whether they should all be permitted is the matter in question, but we will probably never reach consensus on what to call these.
4) “Although there is no rational argument….” See “possible negative effects of SSM on the children”: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar13.htm/ On the other hand, your examples of possible harm are cogent. The issue is one of balance, whether net positive or net negative effects prevail. Increasingly, I am persuaded that the possible positive effects outweigh the negative ones, but I do not believe one can be conclusive. We are carrying out a giant experiment.
5) True, unquestionably it would help.
6) It’s not a matter of what makes sense to me, but what makes sense to a large segment of the population who have religious convictions. The question of what should be done with respect to equal treatment is under discussion. As the debate over “equal treatment” under the law continues, with consideration of trampling on the beliefs of those with such religious convictions who are opposed, I believe it is not an inappropriate concession to permit the retention of the last remnant of the traditional concept of “marriage” by honoring its name.
Legal recognition of same-sex marriage is NOT the same as legalizing same-sex couples raising children. They are separate issues. In fact, to talk about “legalizing” same-sex couples raising children is nonsense, since it is already legal for same-sex couples to raise children.
The degrading and illogical comparison to pedophilia it a typical tactic of SSM opponents, which I would have thought you were above using.
2) Your link is to a single person’s autobiography. It’s genuinely sad that he was raised by emotionally abusive parents, but generalizing from his experience to same-sex parenting in general is logically unjustifiable. (There are many individual cases of lousy heterosexual parents, but no one says they tell us anything about opposite-sex parenting in general.)
It’s true, of course, that present research results might be upended by future results. But the quotes I provided were based on reviews of current, peer-reviewed research, not on just a single case, and should carry almost infinitely more weight than one person’s autobiography in any rational analysis.
3) The differences are not and will not be semantics once heterosexuals begin using “civil unions” as an alternative to marriage (as has already been happening in Illinois and France). Straight couples in the UK are currently suing for access to civil unions.
To me, it seems illogical to claim that you can create a marriage lite alternative to marriage without undermining marriage.
And that you’re so concerned with the law of unintended consequences when it comes to opposing SSM, but apparently think that there’s no way civil unions could ever have unintended consequences to worry about, is logically inconsistent.
I don’t believe that using the term “marriage” confuses things. The vast majority of people seem quite capable of understanding the term as we use it. For a single word to have multiple shades of meaning is extremely common in English; no one has trouble understanding a sentence like “we’re married in the eyes of the state, but not of the Vatican,” any more than it’s hard to understand the sentence “my dog ate my hot dog.”
4) Your link uses research that is years out of date. The arguments there against SSM are all either irrational (sample: “God may punish same-sex parents by sending illness or other misfortune into their lives. This might adversely affect the children in their family”) or based on faulty data (the idea that gay couples have higher rates of domestic violence comes from comparisons of studies which don’t use the same methodology. Federal government studies that have asked straight and gay couples the same questions in the same way, have not found higher rates of DV in same-sex couples).
I agree that we can’t be conclusive – but in social science, there is always room for doubt. But because doubt always exists, the existence of doubt is not a reasonable argument against SSM. It is not reasonable to expect same-sex couples to wait for a certainty that will never come before being able to have equality under the law.
5) Glad we agree. 🙂
6) Your argument suggests that Americans with strong religious convictions should be treated as more important than other Americans; I reject that. Your argument also suggests that those Americans with strong religious convictions who oppose legal SSM, should be treated as more important than those Americans with strong religious convictions who favor legal SSM. I reject that, too.
I reject your formulation entirely. We have a First Amendment which stands for, among other things, the principle that the government does not take sides among religions.
Here’s my alternative formulation: All Americans are equal citizens, without regard to their religion. And the government will make its decisions on important issues like “what is marriage?” based on logical arguments and civil rights, not based on wanting to respect some people’s religious beliefs but not others.
This is not true at all.
” The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 at 95 (1987)
“[M]ost inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated.” id.
” Our decision in Butler v. Wilson, 415 U.S. 953 (1974), summarily affirming Johnson v. Rockefeller, 365 F.Supp. 377 (SDNY 1973), is not to the contrary. That case involved a prohibition on marriage only for inmates sentenced to life imprisonment; and, importantly, denial of the right was part of the punishment for crime.”
Michael, thanks. I stand corrected.
Nonetheless, my larger point stands. Even heterosexuals who know for an absolute, undoubted fact that they cannot have children, have their marriages legally recognized. Saying that infertility is a bar to marriage for same-sex couples, but not opposite-sex couples, is a double-standard.
I grasp the part where it was only applied in regards to race.
What part of “[b]ut in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex” that is so hard to grasp?
I think the problem is that it begs the question. Why not say “there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon sex and one based upon the fundamental difference in race”?
The argument that only opposite sex couples can have kids falls down as infertile people aren’t asked to be in civil unions.
Leave the concept of marriage, the 5000 year old institution which has been the ecclesiastically recognized union of man and woman until the last 20 years, well enough alone.
See Zoe’s comment below. For the Catholic Church (which most Christian denominations have split off from, marriage wasn’t ecclesiastically recognized until the 1400s.
“See Zoe’s comment below. For the Catholic Church (which most Christian denominations have split off from, marriage wasn’t ecclesiastically recognized until the 1400s.”
So? Even if that’s true, nations and tribes across the eons have had religious marriage ceremonies. But if you can prove to me that marriage,and I mean marriage,not secular unions,predate religion then I’ll change my mind. That will be hard to do because I believe Adam and Eve were the first married couple.
But if you can prove to me that marriage,and I mean marriage,not secular unions,predate religion then I’ll change my mind.
You’re begging the question. A secular union IS a marriage. If you remove religion from marriage, what do you have but a secular union?
Also, proving that either religion or nonreligious unions in homo sapiens came first is a fool’s errand. Both go back to before we have history.
That will be hard to do because I believe Adam and Eve were the first married couple.
We know from population genetics that the human race was never at a 2 person bottleneck: there were no Adam and Eve. If you’re going to deny reality, then there’s no real point in discussing this with you.
I’m confused. Accepting arguendo that Adam and Eve were “the first married couple,” Karla has trumped herself, no? There was no religion before there were competing groups and nations, priests and holy men. People being beholden to God when there’s nothing else and he’s talking to them doesn’t mean there’s a religion—religion’s based on faith. It’s like saying my son’s terrarium occupants have a religion, because he feeds them.
Adam and Eve were a committed couple, and if we call them married, then marriage predates religion.
Jack,Adam and Eve are part of Judeo-Christian belief. If they weren’t married God would be in violation of his own standard. It might not have been called “marriage” but the contractual agreement was there. “What God has joined together..”
That’s what I said—they were “married.” But there was no religion!
Jack,
Depends on your definition of religion. I never assume that a religious person will hold to their own definition of religion. Think of all the people that argue that science proves God (e.g, Life is too complicated, ergo God; the eye is perfect, so it must have been designed, ergo God; Sediments show a great flood 4 thousand years ago!), yet retreat back to faith on knowing what God wants.
“We know from population genetics that the human race was never at a 2 person bottleneck: there were no Adam and Eve. If you’re going to deny reality, then there’s no real point in discussing this with you.”
Come on,tgt. You’ve known I’m a Christian for quite some time now. Why did you bother to make the first reply to me in this thread then?
Karla,
Because you’re a Christian who has shown a willingness to listen to reason. Heck, your last message in this thread before this one WAS changing your mind.
As for Adam and Eve, a significant number of Christians treat them as a metaphor. While that has it’s own difficulties (How does one determine which parts of the bible are supposed to be metaphor?), it shows a willingness to engage with demonstrable facts.
I can’t prove that anything goes back before religion as such.
I can prove that certain things, such as commercial contracts and marriage, had no religious component according to the code of Hammurabi, a document that predates Judaism.
http://www.judithstarkston.com/articles/hittite-women-as-reflected-in-the-laws-of-marriage-adultery-and-rape/
Think about it:
Two Atheists get married – (though you may view that as a contradiction in terms, Atheists according to you can only enter a Civil Union) – before a Justice of the Peace. The celebrant says “By the authority vested in me by the state of (whatever) I now pronounce you man and wife:.
According to the state of (whatever) they are married. According to Federal law, they are married. According to the bulk of society, including all laws at country, state, and federal level, they are married.
That a priestess of Isis may not consider them married as there was no religious ceremony honouring Astarte is irrelevant.
Gays have the same rights as that Atheist couple – though the law does not recognise that yet, despite the 14th amendment. What you personally consider “marriage” is another matter, feel free to differ. No one is “forcing” their beliefs on you any more than they do regarding the marriage of Atheists.
And no, no reasonable person considers you a bigot, just because of your eccentric views that 90%+ of legal marriages aren’t marriages at all, that marriage requires ceremonies invoking Santa Claus or some other god.
It’s only when you use your personal religious views to deny others rights that we object. This isn’t a Theocracy with your particular god as the One True God. I don’t know what your religion is, whether you worship the male/female pair Elohim, the male half El(YWHW), Baal, Zeus or the Invisible Pink Unicorn (MHHHNBS). It’s irrelevant, though I mean no disrespect.
I certainly hope we as a culture have not ‘chosen’ equality over freedom as I think you end up loosing both when you legislate equality.
We haven’t chosen equality over freedom in general. We’ve chosen equality over the freedom to discriminate. We’ve done this because discrimination causes societal harm and is immoral. That we have to repeatedly fight this battle over every kind of discrimination is where we have a problem.
You may as well be arguing that it’s a bad thing that we’ve chosen openness over freedom by banning advertisements that lie to people.
I think there is a way for states and the federal government to allow same sex couples to marry without forcing churches or religious personal business to support these arrangements.
As for churches…All the legislation and court decisions that have come down on the pro-equality side meet this criteria.
For religions business though, I strongly disagree with your idea that it would be a good thing to exempt them. Unless you’re in favor of segregation, you should see the problem here.
So, you would prefer to compel expression from certain folks?
Because that is exactly what they are trying to do with Elane Photography.
Under your logic, tgt, I have less rights to my conscience than a Jehovah’s Witness who doesn’t want to say the Pledge of Allegiance.
Sorry, that is unacceptable to me.
Uh what? I don’t consider professional photography to be expression.
You have absolute rights to your conscience but when you open a business to the public and take money to perform your services, you can’t discriminate amongst whom you will perform those services for.
If that’s unacceptable to you, than it’s you who wants to break our social contract.
When you decide that as a Mormon, my right against compelled expression is not as important as that of a Jehovah’s Witness, you broke the contract first.
As I’ve posted about Elaine Photography, this is a case where I can readily see both sides. If Elaine Photography has the right to choose not to serve same-sex couples, may they make the same choice concerning Jews? Or Asians?
And if Elaine Photography is allowed to discriminate that way, then should hotels, restaurants, and lunch counters also be allowed to discriminate?
I can readily agree that any individual photographer should be able to turn down a job that involves expressing something they believe is morally wrong. I’d say that’s a first amendment right. (For photographers who are employees, there are other issues; but since Elaine Photography is owned by the photographer, those questions don’t apply here.)
However, Elaine Photography has subcontracted wedding jobs to other photographers in the past, and could have done so with this wedding. The issue here isn’t an artist’s first amendment right to avoid forced expression, because they were not in any way required to personally take the photographs. The issue here is a business’ claiming that it has a right to refuse to comply with the laws that apply to all businesses that provide services to the public.
I don’t see why a business should get special dispensation to ignore anti-discrimination laws. Nor do I see any principled reason to say that business discrimination against LGBT people cannot be forbidden, but business discrimination against (for example) Jews, women, or Blacks can be forbidden.
This has more to do with what a person is, as opposed to what they do. The basis for anti-discrimination laws is that one cannot be permitted to refuse services on the basis of what a person IS. However, when it comes to what a person DOES, and how their behavior affects the society as a whole, and what they ask of the society in exercising their choices, it is another matter. In this, the society in general DOES have a stake, and those with religious convictions as to society’s character are included. You can’t object to my liking motorcycle riding, but you CAN have a say about requiring me to ride with a helmet, because my BEHAVIOR exposes society to the risk of paying for my injuries, which are arguably much more likely to be severe for helmetless riders.
see https://ethicsalarms.com/2013/03/28/comment-of-the-day-the-same-sex-marriage-wars/comment-page-1/#comment-69999
Who decided that? I haven’t said that any religious person has less of a right than any other religious person.
You’re just making stuff up.
I am not in favor of state mandated segregation as the Jim Crow laws did. I am in favor of allowing business to discriminate if they want.
The pre-civil rights era in the south was one where state governments *required* business to discriminate. A business had to choose, serve blacks or serve whites, but they could not by law do both. This was a unwarranted restriction of liberty by the states, and it needed to be struck down. But, I don’t think you had to go from business forced to choose one or the other to business forced to choose both. I think they should have gone to business can choose to serve whom they want to serve.
Your reply makes sense inline here, but I’ve already replied to a comment where you put forth this idea, and where there was more detail as to why you hold that belief. I think we should let this fall here and just work in that subthread: https://ethicsalarms.com/2013/03/28/comment-of-the-day-the-same-sex-marriage-wars/comment-page-1/#comment-69101
“I am in favor of allowing business to discriminate if they want.”
So is Rand Paul, which is why he is dangerous.
This theory flunks Kant 101. If every drug store applies the “conscience clause,” gays and unmarried mothers can’t get the products they need. If every inn decides to excludes blacks, they can’t travel. If no car rental will serve them, they can’t get around.
The market adjusting won’t allow a family to eat. It’s a classic abstract principle that looks good on paper but is monstrous in real life.
(How did a guy like that get elected to the Senate?)
Except not everyone will decide to act to exclude a group, not as long as the state does not mandate that discrimination.
Likewise, we have passed laws about discriminatory lending/housing practices and yet we still have mostly racially homogenous city neighborhoods.
You don’t need EVERYONE to exclude for there to be a problem. Look at gas stations. Say I’m driving to visit my sister a couple states away. I’m going to have to stop and get gas at least once. When I get down to a quarter tank, I pull off the highway at the next gas sign….ooops, they don’t serve people like me. Lets go to the next…ooops…. they don’t serve people like me. In low population areas, I might be done. No gas for me. Now I’ve run out of gas and need a tow. Let’s call the local place…ooops….they don’t serve people like me. Repeat. Okay, I need a hotel…
What does mostly homogeneous neighborhoods matter? My parents live in a mostly white area, but they can still take my black cousins out to dinner.
I am not saying it’s ethical to for a business to discriminate, but I am not in favor or making all unethical behavior illegal. Legalizing drugs also fails Kant’s Categorical Imperative, but I still think we should not make it illegal for people to harm themselves.
I’m also not in favor of making all unethical behavior illegal. What matters is harm to others. There’s great harm to others with discrimination. I don’t believe there is for drugs (even if Jack does).
I think it makes a difference what the context of the discrimination is. There is a difference between not serving someone food because they are black, and not taking pictures of a homosexual wedding because you don’t believe in gay marriage. In one you are discriminating against someone because they are a certain way, the other you are just not participating in something which is against your moral/religious code. I see it as the difference between a Jewish restaurant owner not serving pork compared to not serving people who eat pork.
Your argument ultimately requires you to boil down to the premise “Homosexuals choose homosexuality, they aren’t born to it”.
Good luck arguing that one.
My religion says that black people shouldn’t eat at restaurants. Sure, they can be black, but I can’t get behind them eating outside their homes. I just don’t want to participate in something that is against my religious code.
“I don’t believe there is [harm to others] for drugs.” You’re manifestly an idiot. “There is no moral, decent opposing viewpoint on this issue, and the idea that the bigots have been silenced is laughable.”
Comment is irrelevant to the discussion.
Then, why did you mention it in your comment?
What now?
My comments that you quoted were relevant to the discussions where I wrote them. Your comment here was not relevant to the discussion here.
And as soon as every store in town declares that they will not serve a population, they are announcing to the rest of the world ‘Hey – there’s a market here we aren’t interested in! We won’t fight you for their money!”
It wouldn’t be long before those holes were filled. That’s the beauty of Capitalism – everyone’s greedy, and can be relied upon to be so.
Exactly. Where I live the Food Lion basically discriminates against Asian immigrants by not having any of their local food products for sale. Did not take long for an Asian grocery to open to serve that need.
Ugh. That is NOT discrimination, and that’s ducking the issue. Asians were allowed to buy exactly what everyone else was. Your preference would be to allow Food Lion to say “No Chinks or Irishmen” and let the market sort it out. Until then, if there’s just that one supermarket, where are the Lees supposed to shop?
Let’s be fair Jack,
We’ll take the Chinks and the Blacks…..but we don’t want the Irish!
“Rock Ridge Ethics”
Hey, they got a toll-road to work in the middle of the desert!
And, appropriate to this post, I believe the final fight scene had a very open and tolerant and humorous sub-component in this regard, at least before we got super sensitive about ourselves.
That cowboy and that dancer were married, adopted three kids, and live happily in Modesto. And they will always regard their song as “The French Mistake.”
Voila!
or the Greeks 🙂
Do you have any concept of how impossible this is, and how ridiculous and cruel it sounds to the family that can’t find a dentist or a barbershop within 10 miles of where they live?
I certainly agree with your Kantian rebuttal to the market option. But don’t disregard the market. It can be said that the market works pretty quickly in that regard.
Recently freed slaves (now joining the ranks of consumers and businessmen) rapidly entered the free market. There were businesses that did not discriminate and there were businesses that did (typically manned by the old heavily begrudged elite that just got it’s clock cleaned by the North).
The non-discriminating businesses were eating up the market share and rapidly becoming poised to surpass the old-elite. In a last bid for supremacy, the old-elite had to violate market principles and seek a State sanctioned solution to their personal woes…the aforementioned Jim Crow laws and other segregationist policies.
Note those policies had to be State enforced, because the free-market was rapidly becoming a source of equal treatment.
…in some places. In others, the discriminators were dominant. That’s how the market actually works.
The market was rapidly sweeping out the old-guard. That’s how the market did work. Maybe not as rapidly as would be liked, but at least a willing way.
The discriminators saw their market share diminish and diminish and diminish, and therefore sought (successfully) to impose their views via legislation, because they knew they couldn’t win in the market.
That’s how the market actually works.
again, in some places. It’s a fact of the market that bad behavior is not eradicated. Pockets of it will always exist as good business. Denying this is denying reality.
I haven’t denied anything.
Its a fact of reality that bad behavior will not be eradicated. You can’t legislate against a person’s opinions.
You will now rebut: well we can create laws that disincentivize and stigmatize negative beliefs.
The market was already doing it. Much more effectively.
Denying this is denying reality.
Its a fact of reality that bad behavior will not be eradicated. You can’t legislate against a person’s opinions.
I may have been unclear. My point was that with the market, there are pockets of discrimination. With legislation, there are still one-off discrimination’s and those can be removed as they occur. What there isn’t is pockets that severely impact lives.
You absolutely can legislate against a person’s opinions. That doesn’t mean the opinions will be changed, but it does mean that either their behavior will change, or they will be shut down.
The market only goes so far. Without laws that ban discrimination, the market would reach an equilibrium that includes pockets of discrimination. These pockets can be removed with litigation. You either are denying this, or claiming that the pockets of discrimination don’t matter. I know you’re not callous enough to believe the latter, so I assumed you meant the former.
Perhaps I was unclear. I was merely equating that a legal solution is just as incomplete and imperfect as a market solution. Because you tend to betray that your attitudes are one that places utmost faith in a governmental sledgehammer method, I geared my commentary towards the imperfections of governmental solution.
I certainly believe the two go hand in hand to work together.
I do believe that the market ought to be allowed to work first.
Ok. We’re back on a closer page to each other.
My main difference with you appears to be here: “I was merely equating that a legal solution is just as incomplete and imperfect as a market solution.”
I can’t agree with the “just as incomplete and imperfect” part. Both are incomplete, and both are imperfect, but they are different types of incomplete and different types of imperfect.
Contrary to what you think, I don’t actually trust the government that much. There are just cases where my distrust of the government is trumped by a desire to remove bad behavior, and a history that socially we won’t stop the bad behavior on our own. We tend to disagree on many of those cases, so those are the opinions of mine that you are exposed to (and exposed to repeatedly).
In the case of discrimination, we have thousands of years of history that show that the market will not stabilize in a way that doesn’t cause serious problems for minorities. From Israel 5000 years ago until now, the market (in various amounts of freedom) has never gotten there. The constitution was a major leap forward in part because it recognized that the will of the people (which works similarly, though not identically, in democracy and the free market) cannot be fully trusted to be fair, and certain protections need to be put in place for the protection of everyone.
Maybe we should leave government out of it and duke it out amongst ourselves. Survival of the fittest. Majority rule. Like evolution decrees.
“The constitution was a major leap forward in part because it recognized that the will of the people (which works similarly, though not identically, in democracy and the free market) cannot be fully trusted to be fair, and certain protections need to be put in place for the protection of everyone.”
That’s half the story, a revealing half I might add. The other half, and I’d submit probably on the 51% side of “other-half” is that the government cannot be fully trusted to be fair, and certain protections need to be put in place for the protection of everyone.
That’s half the story, a revealing half I might add. The other half, and I’d submit probably on the 51% side of “other-half” is that the government cannot be fully trusted to be fair, and certain protections need to be put in place for the protection of everyone.
I meant to cover the government in my “the will of the people” with the parenthetical of democracy. Calling it out explicitly and separately was a good idea.
I think the real difference here is that you weight the right of general freedom of the free market higher than I do compared to individual rights (or you weight the evidence of issues differently than I do…which likely amounts to the same thing).
@karla
Evolution doesn’t decree how anything should be. Evolution is what has happened, and there are very few people who understand evolution who see it as other than a wasteful, a-moral process.
Evolution is really akin to the free market in some ways. It’s what naturally occurs. Creatures and businesses that are better suited to their environment survive, but survival doesn’t not mean a creature or business is good.
@Karla,
Duking it out and survival of the fittest is why the persecuted groups left the Old World to begin with. They were tired of being on the losing end of civil strife. They felt they could create a society in which people could live happily side by side with different religious beliefs.
Duking it out and survival of the fittest is why the persecuted groups left the Old World to begin with. They were tired of being on the losing end of civil strife. They felt they could create a society in which people could live happily side by side with different religious beliefs”
I was being sarcastic,Tex.
They felt they could create a society in which people could live happily side by side with different religious beliefs.
More like, they wanted to be the ones on top, and could be. There was considerable religious persecution in the early colonies.
Yes, I should have been much clearer. I was attempting to encapsulate, in a very short blurb, the religious tolerance of America that developed through occasional fits and starts from the earliest persecuted colonists, through the establishments of the plethora of colonies and religious establishments that ultimately had to work together, to the revolution and founding.
tex,
Got it. I generally agree with that.
Yes, Jack, but they won’t. There will always be those drug stores that WILL supply what others want, even if certain proprietors choose not to on the basis of their moral or religious conviction. Restaurant owners have the right to eject patrons who disturb the peace (or decide to have sex on the restaurant table in front of families with children, as happened in Florida recently). Restaurant owners should also be allowed to maintain “smoking” sections, or “non-smoking” sections, or to not comply with “no-smoking” laws because it is their right and choice to do so. Those who object to smoking can find somewhere else, and likewise, smokers who don’t like an all- non-smoking restaurant can choose to go somewhere else. This state-sponsored micromanagement of human behavior has got to stop, Jack. Now go get yourself a 24 oz Coke, and go lay by your dish.
By the way, to ask how Rand Paul got elected, you first have to answer how Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Rangel and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz got elected.
I certainly object to the state telling restaurants whether they can allow smoking or not, as longs as smoking’s legal. But your first two sentences are willfully dishonest there are one hospital towns and one drug store towns and one dentist towns, and “the market” isn’t going to supply a second, democratic option to a town that has one bigoted druggist. And the stigma of happening to be the only black family that can’t eat at the town’s prestige restaurant is a brand of shame, not a mere inconvenience.
Without the state enforcing racial equity (and religious, and sexual), in the town square, the promise of democracy is a myth and a cheat, The market argument is pencil and graph paper stuff:the harm to the fabric of society while waiting for the market to work—Jim Crow resisted the market pretty well—is far worse than the technical, philosophical breach of absolute principle.
As to the last—the answer is the same. Idiots. Idiots everywhere. Lots of ’em. Or, if you prefer, marks.
Your first comments were “every drug store”, “every inn”, and “no car rental” and such. I accept that sometimes (often?) you can be a drama queen, but c’mon. This matter of one’s own religious freedom is not an “all or nothing” phenomenon. If there truly is one and only one purveyor of a good or service, as in examples above, then accommodations can be made (whether by law or by personal exception). However, there is a world of difference in requiring that one accommodate a gay’s desire for fueling his car in the only station for miles around, and expressly requiring an action which (to borrow the more egregious example of violation of a pharmacist’s conscience and religious conviction) accommodates the murder of a conceptus by selling the morning-after pill. As my political science professor drew the metaphor, your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins, and such is always the balancing act between your freedom and mine.
Hmmm… you probably aren’t aware of the requirements for treatment to be authorised (even if paid for privately).
First, a 3-month (minimum) psychiatric assessment. This phase can take a decade or more in difficult cases. After this process, should the patient be deemed a candidate for treatment, a formal referral (by letter, detailing the referrer’s qualifications) is sent to an endocrinologist, who then makes an independent assessment of the case, and if satisfied, prescribes hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and monitors endocrine levels at 3 monthly intervals.
Some therapists insist on 1 or even 2 years of the patient living as the opposite sex 24/7 before hormone treatment can start.
All others only require this 1-2 year period after hormonal treatment, as that reduces the rate of patients being assaulted.
Neither regime prevents patients from being arrested and imprisoned for using restrooms of the opposite sex, but 24/7 means 24/7, this is a requirement for treatment to continue. It’s not a test of medical suitability, but whether the local society will tolerate the existence of a Transsexual in their midst. The patient must also retain a full-time job during this period, again a test of societal acceptance.
After this period, the original treating mental health practitioner refers the patient to a Gender Specialist, with post-doctoral qualifications, who starts a de novo assessment, taking into account the patient’s reaction to hormones, the successful negotiation of the 1-2 year “Real Life Test”, as well as psychological concerns.
Finally, both original therapist and Gender Specialist separately write letters of authorisation addressed to a specific surgeon, detailing the case, and “putting their licenses to practice on the line” that surgery is necessary.
The surgeon then interviews the patient, and makes their own assessment before consenting to the procedure.
This process is described in the Standards of Care v6, at http://www.transgendercare.com/guidance/resources/hbigda01/
Average time till surgery – 3 to 5 years in simple cases, 15 or more in difficult ones. Absolute minimum, 15 months.
In view of this, concerns about “abuse of provision of service” would seem perhaps a little overblown. There are about 1000 such procedures performed in the USA every year, with another 1000 US residents going overseas where surgeons are both more experienced, and often cheaper.
If there truly is one and only one purveyor of a good or service, as in examples above, then accommodations can be made (whether by law or by personal exception).
How far apart do the purveyors need to be for the law to step in, and what in the world is a personal exception? If a restaurant doesn’t want to serve blacks, and they’re the only one around, do you think they’re going to decide to serve blacks because it’s the right thing to do? If that were the case, they’d be serving blacks all the time.
ll. As my political science professor drew the metaphor, your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins, and such is always the balancing act between your freedom and mine.
In your political science professor’s example, the arm swinger was the pharmacist. He can swing his arm all he wants if no one’s around, but if his swinging keeps me from getting my medicine, he’s in the wrong. If the pharmacist isn’t willing to give out the drugs, then he shouldn’t have taken a job that requires it. It’s pretty simple.
Jack I think you need to give this another thought. Freedom to associate or not with whoever you want is one of the most important rights today. We live in a pluralistic society that doesn’t share the same values, beliefs or ethics. We have to let groups freely form their own associations, their reasons for doing so are nobody’s business. You may not like it in some cases but that is the only way a free society can work. Let me give you a few examples of this principle in practice.
1. You run a bank and Westboro Baptist comes in for a loan so they can put a branch of their church in your town. They have all the collateral and financial statements necessary to justify giving them a loan. Should you have the right not to do business with them because you find them and their beliefs objectionable?
2. Should a Jewish day center have the right to eject a group of skinheads even if they are behaving themselves and following the day center’s rules?
3. Muslim American’s are opening Sharia compliant banks that serve their community and follow their religious strictures. How many loans do you think they are giving to entrepreneurs who want to start businesses that cater to gays? Suddenly there is noticeable lack of brave proponents for gay rights.
Government discrimination is the real evil not the everyday associations that Americans make all the time. Deliberately confusing government discrimination with private association is wrongheaded. Conflating the two just gives the left a chance to call their opponents racists, homophobes, sexists or Islamaphobes without ever having to seriously confronting their arguments. It’s awesome you get to win the argument without actually debating and feel righteous without actually doing anything.
1. Westboro Baptist example – discrimination against them would be illegal (assuming your bank employs 15+ people) under Federal Law.
It would also be unethical in other circumstances.
Note the limitation under the Civil Rights Act 1964 – it was only supposed to apply to businesses where they had significant economic clout (not Ma and Pa stores) or where they would have an effective local monopoly, so there’s no feasible alternative. A compromise. Local ordinances usually over-ride this with stricter rules, but it’s still quite legal to say “Niggers need not apply” in many job ads.
2. Jewish Daycare – no, they have no moral right, unless there’s a reasonable apprehension of danger.. It might be legal though.
3. Muslim Banks. Perfectly legal in 34 states, there are no protections at the Federal level for GLBs. Legal too in 38 states if the customer is Trans rather than Gay. Unethical in all.
Recent (as in this week) example in Arizona – State appropriations committee gave a “recommend pass” on party lines to a bill that invalidated all local ordinances protecting Trans people. Cities and counties will not be allowed to protect them locally. Tennessee passed a similar but more extensive bill about a year ago, preventing protection of gays as well, and explicitly preventing implementation of Federal law by local ordinances.
1. I think forcing someone to do business with the Westboro Baptist is totally unethical. I am not for restricting the speech of that group. They should be free to say whatever they like without my approval or the governments. I should be equally free to not listen to them, do business with them or associate with them. I also feel totally comfortable saying I don’t want them in my town.
2. I don’t think you actually believe a Jewish group couldn’t legally or ethically exclude skinheads.
3. I know they are Sharia banks are legal. Explain why I am ethically bound to give Westboro Baptist a loan but a Sharia bank is not.
4. Do you actually believe it is legal or common to post “n—‘s need not apply?” Claims like this totally undermine your credibility on other issues. I think you need to seriously examine this mental caricature you have constructed of your opponents.
5. I have no idea what you mean when you say there are no protections for GLB. I assume you mean some kind of special rights and privileges for GLB. Unless you are saying that it is currently legal to beat, steal, murder or defraud the GLB.
“Principles that are abandoned just because you don’t like someone, because they’re foetid scum who are wastes of oxygen, ambulatory offal, aren’t principles at all”
Dealing with scum and forcing people to deal with scum is your principle not mine.
Fair enough. I was just going by “do unto others…”.
We have no 14th amendment in my country – just a tradition of tolerance.
Possibly a relic of the convict past. Possibly because we know what it’s like to be treated like scum by all good, righteous people.
If we don’t treat the Westboro Baptists equally – I’m not saying justly – then we are forced to draw a line somewhere. That’s too hard, it’s too easy to become like, well, the Westboro Baptists ourselves.
Discrimination on the basis of Religion leads to injustice, inevitably. I know of no exceptions.
It’s because I’d dearly like to, that I shouldn’t.
There’s also an element of self-interest. “First they came for…” and all that. But apart from that,it’s the right thing to do. Ethics are Universal. You don’t abandon them just because it’s hard.
Zoe you seem like a nice person. I would trust you to watch my dog (a high compliment from me) so please don’t take offense. Your unwillingness to judge and fear of people judging is a huge blind spot in your ethical outlook. Beneath your argument I sense this fear that you will be hated and discriminated against. I have bad news for you, people will hate you, discriminate against you and choose not to associate with you. Some will have good reasons, some will have bad reasons and some will have no reason at all. Nothing will change that. No law can change this fact and no anti-bullying campaign will put an end to bullying. It is something that all of us face. The good news is that none of these facts are the end of the world. Coming to grips with these facts is actually very liberating. Knowing your enemies is just as important as knowing your friends, but you have to be able to judge who is friend and who is foe.
We all have a limited time on this earth and I believe we should use that time wisely. Don’t waste your time on people and things that you cannot change. You may be a better person than me but I only have a limited amount of compassion, charity and sense of fairness. Any time I waste on the unworthy like the Westboros of the world is effort and charity that could be given to the more deserving. But to use your time and effort wisely you have to make judgments. Its ok to judge bad people in fact I would say that it is a moral imperative. This doesn’t mean that you want to suppress them or keep them from exercising their 1st amendment rights, it just means that they aren’t worth your time or pity.
Of course I judge! I won’t express my opinions of the foetid cult known as the Westboro Baptists, for fear of melting your screen.
I’m Intersex,and effectively (though not technically) Transsexual. I don’t have to worry about “persecution” or “discrimination”, it’s a given. I have seventeen times the chance of being murdered as you do, and the odds are 2:1 that if that happens, it won’t be seriously investigated.
Quite against my natural inclinations for a quiet, private life, I have to be an “Activist”. Not so much for myself – though there’s an element of that – but because I cannot stand by while others, less privileged and powerful than myself, get persecuted. I never could, even as a child.
I fight monsters. Worse people than you can imagine, some of them, though most are merely human. Sociopaths and sadists whose natural inclinations to cruelty are usually held in check by social or legal sanction, but who are permitted by society to go after Pariahs. I face unremitting Hatred every day, not in my personal life, but in my political activities.
Those who fight monsters often become monsters themselves. Stare into the Abyss, and the Abyss stares into you.
I’m not the good person you think I am. I have to adopt the philosophy of tempering justice with mercy, of being unreasonably reasonable, of turning the other cheek, because if I don’t do that, I will become what I’m fighting against.
Example of what I face, every single day.. Read the comments.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicare/291063-hhs-board-to-consider-covering-sex-changes-under-medicare-medicaid
“Example of what I face, every single day.. Read the comments.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicare/291063-hhs-board-to-consider-covering-sex-changes-under-medicare-medicaid”
Dang Zoe. Sounds like almost the same kind of s**t Muslims go through. How does that commenter explain people like my husband’s cousin who was born with male and female genitalia? Mental? Then there are these poor people whom their parents decided for them and had them surgically adjusted. Now they are trapped in the body of the wrong sex. Some commit suicide.
And taken as such. A compliment – and an honour. I doubt the occasion would ever arise, but if I was in that position, I’d do my very best.
Thanks. I appreciate that.
Yup.
It’s something we try to prevent, that.
A few of us even de-cloak and appear on national television, putting our heads above the parapet, risking death threats and worse.
Both Nat and I have had some problems as the result of that video. Exposing ourselves like that. But nowhere near as many as we were prepared to have. Someone has to go on point, or things will never improve.
“A few of us even de-cloak and appear on national television, putting our heads above the parapet, risking death threats and worse.”
I do not understand why you would be persecuted this way. I have to wonder about so called civilized society. We sure have our share of neanderthals. The video suggests that doctors change the sex without the parents knowledge or did I misinterpret? And there seem to be much more of this than we would think.
” Cities and counties will not be allowed to protect them locally. Tennessee passed a similar but more extensive bill about a year ago, preventing protection of gays as well, and explicitly preventing implementation of Federal law by local ordinances.”
What does that mean that they can’t protect them?
In Tennessee it’s now illegal for cities and counties to pass laws saying you can’t discriminate against group X, unless group X is already covered by state anti-discrimination law.
For example, the (Federal) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prevents discrimination on the basis of disability. Tennessee anti-discrimination law does not include that as a protected class. So it’s illegal for Nashville (for example) to pass local ordinances implementing the principles of the ADA.
Another example – Nashville passed a city law saying it was illegal to terminate a tenancy just because the tenants were gay. This state law nullifies that. Similarly, Nashville law prevented a bus driver from ejecting passengers just because they were gay. The state law nullifies that too. Ambulance drivers can refuse to transport accident victims if they are gay (or more often, transsexual or Intersex, as there’s physical signs) now. And so on.
Transsexuals and Intersex people were covered before due to caselaw as they had been classed under “sex discrimination” by courts.This state law also explicitly removed the existing state law coverage.
Yes, it’s being challenged, and in 5 or 10 years will no doubt be ruled unconstitutional. But meanwhile, it’s the law.
“Another example – Nashville passed a city law saying it was illegal to terminate a tenancy just because the tenants were gay. This state law nullifies that. Similarly, Nashville law prevented a bus driver from ejecting passengers just because they were gay. The state law nullifies that too. Ambulance drivers can refuse to transport accident victims if they are gay (or more often, transsexual or Intersex, as there’s physical signs) now. And so on.”
This does indeed present a problem. For instance,if a gay is being murdered a cop doesn’t have to try and save him. If a gay’s house was on fire,the fire dept.wouldn’t have to put it out,etc.
Police have no duty to save anyone.
What it does mean is that they can refuse to even investigate the murder.
In the USA, 70% of homicides are “cleaned up” even if no conviction is obtained. Unless the victim is Transsexual.. then the figure is 30%, with conviction for Homicide being rare, to say the least. But at least relatives can take civil action in such cases – in 15 states.
“Police have no duty to save anyone.”
Yes,I did find that out just recently. What a surprise. What’s the point of calling 911 in such cases I wonder? But that’s for another discussion. It is wrong,of course,that gays and transexuals should not be offered the same protections as anyone else.
The state law is blatantly unconstitutional. It shouldn’t survive the first challenge.
Yes, of course it’s unconstitutional. So what? They’ll just pass another one when this is struck down. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Idaho’s similar law is another matter. Proving animus against one group may prove impossible. You see, those who voted for it were told that it had no effect on civil rights, that of course everyone was protected by both state and federal law.
Except they’re not. There’s nothing at either level regarding GLBTs. The legislators couldn’t believe that, they thought it had to be a ridiculous exaggeration. So ridiculous, they didn’t bother to check that the legal advice they’d been given by experts was actually correct.
Now there’s a lot of buyer’s remorse, but undoing it would be difficult.
What is the text of the law?
There is quite a difference between forbidding municipalities from passing laws saying you can not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and forbidding municipalities from passing laws saying you can not discriminate against homosexuals.
Part 1 states states that cities and municipalities cannot protect any group not already protected by state (not federal) law.
So it’s illegal to have anti-discrimination provisions protecting on the basis of pregnancy, veteran status, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity etc, All existing protections at city or county level are nullified.
Part 2 repeals previous state protection of anyone on the basis of sex if their birth certificate has been changed (something allowed by many states but explicitly illegal in Tennessee)
Freedom to associate or not with whoever you want is one of the most important rights today.
Sure, but when it comes to business, it’s trumped by our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Your examples actually show this:
1. Of course not. Just like I don’t want anybody to be able to deny me a loan because I’m an Atheist. And nobody should be able to deny you a loan because you don’t believe in nondiscrimination laws.
2. Depends. Is this a private club? If so, they can reject whoever they want. If it’s a business, then absolutely not. See 1.
3. So long as the bank also follows all U.S. laws, I don’t see any problem with Sharia compliant banks. Refusing loans to people starting gay businesses would be wrong. See 1 again.
Why do we have these laws? Because when we didn’t have them, the minorities and downtrodden did not have a fair shake. They weren’t treated equal and didn’t have the same ability to pursue happiness. Since businesses are essentially public accomodations, the minor impediment to free association in business dealings was considered the lesser of the evils.
Suddenly there is noticeable lack of brave proponents for gay rights.
Really? I see two possible things in play with this comment. First, until one of these banks actually discriminates, there isn’t going to be a problem, and if they crop up in heavy Muslim areas, it might be a while before they even have a chance to. Second, I see an idea that equality is anti-Christian, but that’s too laughable for a response.
Deliberately confusing government discrimination with private association is wrongheaded.
I don’t know of anyone doing that. The closest we have is your confusing public businesses with private association.
Conflating the two just gives the left a chance to call their opponents racists, homophobes, sexists or Islamaphobes without ever having to seriously confronting their arguments.
This makes no sense. Even if it was legal for businesses to discriminate, the discriminators would still be whichever of those things they are.
“2. Depends. Is this a private club? If so, they can reject whoever they want. If it’s a business, then absolutely not. ”
Boyscouts?
Legally, yes.
Ethically, no, but for private groups, the rights scales tip differently than for public businesses.
I would have to disagree. Rand Paul is only dangerous to those who think that it is acceptable for the state to try to create “equality” or “fairness” in terms of economic or social outcomes.
The real issue is that many of the activists are seeking not tolerance, but the silence of any opposing viewpoints, with that silence enforced by the de facto threat of economic ruin.
He got elected because he speaks to those concerned with such a situation.When government gets involved in a lot things, why are we surprised when suddenly politicians, and eventually bureaucrats, end up being either bought and sold, or as ideologues on one side or another?
The real issue is that many of the activists are seeking not tolerance, but the silence of any opposing viewpoints, with that silence enforced by the de facto threat of economic ruin.
If the “de facto threat of economic ruin” was real and a problem, then aren’t you really complaining that society can’t handle these things on their own? The government isn’t enforcing silence on the issue, so the silence must be coming from social groups.
Methinks you have a pretty big contradiction here.
“I am not in favor of state mandated segregation as the Jim Crow laws did. I am in favor of allowing business to discriminate if they want.
The pre-civil rights era in the south was one where state governments *required* business to discriminate. A business had to choose, serve blacks or serve whites, but they could not by law do both. This was a unwarranted restriction of liberty by the states, and it needed to be struck down. But, I don’t think you had to go from business forced to choose one or the other to business forced to choose both. I think they should have gone to business can choose to serve whom they want to serve.”
I agree,Brian.
There can never be equality because two men or two women cannot create a child together. Maybe heterosexual couples can’t reproduce sometimes, but same-sex couples can never reproduce (as a couple). You can call it what you want, but it is what it is.
I am not a hater, a bible-thumper, or a bigot – and I really resent being labelled because I don’t agree with the gay agenda, which goes beyond the marriage flap – I really take exception to what is now being pushed as “sex education” in public schools, paid for with my tax dollars. As a matter-of-fact, I really don’t give a damn what anybody does behind closed doors, but I’m really, really tired of having this constant public breast-beating over the “poor oppressed gay population” and comparing it to racial discrimination. A person of color is obviously a person of color. Nobody knows who’s gay unless they’re told and then it’s a matter of “look at me, I’m special.” It wears on me, kind of like that cute two-year-old in the restaurant who starts screaming and throwing food around and then isn’t so cute anymore.
I fixed paragraph one for you:
There can never be equality because women can have babies without men but men can’t have babies without women. Maybe some women can’t reproduce on their own sometimes, but men can never reproduce on their own. You can call it what you want, but it is what it is.
Nobody knows who’s gay unless they’re told? Are you saying that gay people should never talk about their boyfriends and spouses, but that it’s appropriate for straights to do so? Even a picture on a work desk is inappropriate?
You don’t give a damn about what anyone does, but you want only the things you do to be talked about. Bigot seems to be the right word for you.
When I suspect/fear that the loss of religious freedom is a “feature” inherent with same-sex marriage, YOU are the type of person I am talking about in the comment in the original post.
Huh? With your logic, you could make the same argument that the civil rights movement led to all the crap we associate with “race-baiting”. It still doesn’t mean that fighting against segregation was wrong, or that it will inevitably lead to a world where you can get arrested for saying “black hole”, even if some idiots will try to do so. Honestly, your argument is rather ridiculous if we are to take it as a serious objection; you might as well say that legalizing either homosexuality and/or books about atheism will inevitably led to a loss in religious freedom. Hell, there’s no real observable negative linear relationship between gay rights and religious freedom; if anything, anti-gay states also tend to be anti-religious freedom, whether that be the former USSR or Iran. And if you’re worried about Christianity in general; well, the large First World nations which now treat religion with relative indifference became more secular before they did anything major about gay rights.
This seems to be completely unrelated to my comment. Either that or you think public criticism ideas is somehow an impingement on religious freedom. If that were the case, then you might as well be Sarah Palin complaining that the news media is impinging on her freedom of speech.
Quit being dishonest, you’ve been seemingly rational up to this point. You know oldgraymary’s context. Oldgraymary didn’t say “have” babies. She said “create” babies.
Lemme know how often outside a lab, hell, outside of a theoretical lab, a human child is created without genetic material from a male and genetic material from a female.
My point was that it was a completely pointless difference. If it will appease you, pretend I said lactation or sperm production.
No, it would please if you weren’t dishonest. Because you were.
What was dishonest? My point was that if same sex couples and opposite sex couples will never be equal due to one thing that opposite sex couples can do that same sex couples can’t, then men and women can never be equal because there are things that women can do that men can’t (or vice versa). My example was unclear to you, so I came up with an example that was clear. There was no dishonesty on my part. there was just some unintentional ambiguity on exactly how I was parodying oldgraymary’s comment.
No, you were dishonest because you used an opportunity to show an error in her informal syllogism by altering the terms of her premises, then pretending like the altered premises were what she was talking about.
If you wanted to be honest you would have pointed out the flaws in her logic. Instead you accidentally (or purposefully) tried to show flaws in her premises. Which, although you will refuse to see it, there were none.
Aw, c’mon. We “bigots” have feelings, too. And we’re oppressed. People don’t like us. And won’t associate with us. And we are refused admission to some associations. We get shouted down. Things get thrown at us. I think it’s time for “bigots’ rights” movement. I mean, everyone else has a “rights” movement, and it’s time for us to have our redress of grievances…
We actually try to cater for you in Australia.
Some bigots feel very uncomfortable sharing restrooms with Trans and Intersex people of the same sex.
Some bigots feel uncomfortable sharing restrooms with Jews, Blacks etc for that matter.
So we provide unisex single-user facilities, so they don’t get discomfited.
I don’t mean for the Blacks, Jews or Intersex people to use… I mean for the bigots to use, if they want.
OK, as long it’s “separate but equal” bigots’ restrooms, I’m OK with that.
A bit better than that – these are the restrooms that have facilities for the disabled, so are invariably superior to the usual ones.
Bigots are people too, and whether or not you regard bigotry as a mental illness/disability, they have the same human rights as everyone else, despite societal disapproval of them. Otherwise we’d be hypocrites.
Enough! I’ve been reading these responses for the past 1/2 hour ~ they go on and on and on. And I have to say that I agree with everything “oldgraymary” says. Good grief! Do I give a rats ass about what a man and man or woman and woman do to get their jollies? No! And they shouldn’t care what I do to get mine either. Keep it where it belongs and get it out of my face. Enough already.
Gay people are no more in your face as straight people are. As noted, if you were consistent that wanted all sexual relationships out of your face, you would have to outlaw all references/pictures of significant others.
You have a stupid argument.
“Gay people are no more in your face as straight people are.”
Generally speaking,yes. However,there are “militant” gay rights groups who are very much in your face as have been some other groups pushing for civil rights. Unfortunately they get the most attention and can reduce the cause to nit picking,vigilantism in the eyes of the public. These are the people who see certain people as their oppressors and hate them,want to take them down. Recall the New Black Panther party’s “kill all white babies.”
Fortunately people like this do not represent the norm.
I don’t know of any “militant” gay rights groups. Active gay rights groups, yes, but not militant ones.
As for “in your face” behavior, oldgraymary and garlicfriesandbaseball are arguing for second class citizenship. They’re arguing that people should have to hide who they are. Activism against this requirement isn’t “in your face” behavior.
So the man who punched the Christian woman in the face wasn’t in her face?
Urinating in church pews isn’t in your face?
Of course those actions – if they actually happened, I’d like to see documentation – are both “in your face” and beyond the pale. However, holding them against gay people generally, or harping on them in a debate like this, would be as unfair as bringing up every example of Christians assaulting or (in some extreme cases) murdering gay people in this debate to hold against Christians.
“However, holding them against gay people generally, or harping on them in a debate like this, would be as unfair as bringing up every example of Christians assaulting or (in some extreme cases) murdering gay people in this debate to hold against Christians.”
Of course. I stand corrected.
Thanks very much; I appreciate you’re saying that.
Like Ampersand, I want documentation. Even if the general situations occurred, details matter.
As you’ve written them, I’d say that neither of those are “in your face” behavior. They’re, stupid, illegal acts, but that’s a completely different thing then standard “in your face” behavior. In your face behavior would be more like “Nanny nanny boo boo, I’m gay and you can’t touch me!!! Hahaha!”
I think of “in your face” behavior as things that are usually legal, but unethical. Think Westboro baptist church. Think door to door proselytizing.
“Like Ampersand, I want documentation. Even if the general situations occurred, details matter.”
http://jadebooks.com/Runnin__.._EFX0.php
Couldn’t find the one of the woman punched in the face but I did see the video so you can take my word for it or not.
In the case of the elderly lady,the crowd said they denounced what certain ones did to her.
My point is that, like the rest of us,gays aren’t above such tactics. But as Ampersand said,don’t demonize everyone for what a few do and that’s right.
In tgt’s mind stuff like what just happened to a Chick-Fil-A in San Antonio is activism against bigots – not vandalism:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/28/San-Antonio-Chick-fil-A-Vandalized-with-Gay-Marriage-Signs
Now, now…tgt would absolutely not endorse vandalism for any purpose. Vandalism isn’t activism. It’s ass-holism.
The photo with that article isn’t from this incident; it’s from an incident almost a year ago that took place in another state. The vandal who painted on the side of the building was arrested, and rightly so.
What happened in this new incident, as far as I can tell, is that people taped fliers to the window.
During the gay marriage ban fight here in Oregon, we had many pro-same-sex-marriage signs in our yard and in our windows, including the window of our car. The yard signs were stolen again and again, and someone chucked a brick into the windshield of our car. (The brick didn’t go through the windshield – car glass is strong stuff! – but it did create a spiderweb of cracks on the windshield, which we had to have replaced.) THAT was vandalism.
There were also some anti-gay-marriage fliers shoved into our mailbox and, on one occasion, taped to our fence by the front gate. It didn’t occur to me, then or now, to call that vandalism; I just read the fliers and threw them into the recycling bin.
Should I have called the police to report vandals taping fliers to my fence? If the anti-gay-marriage advocate who taped that to my fence had been arrested and wound up with a felony on his record, would that have been a just outcome? Does the fact that someone taped a flier to my fence somehow give me moral high ground over gay marriage opponents?
Maybe we should avoid making mountains out of molehills. It’s not like we don’t have real issues to disagree about.
What I wrote was “Now, now…tgt would absolutely not endorse vandalism for any purpose. Vandalism isn’t activism. It’s ass-holism.” That did not suggest that what was done in the case noted was vandalism, did it? Indeed, in tgt’s honor, I’d call my statement a “reverse no true Scotsman” proof: tgt wouldn’t endorse vandalism, if he endorses this, it ain’t vandalism.”
For the most part, responsible papering isn’t vandalism. If a papering is excessive, or covers windows, or is abusive, or requires a lot of expense and effort to remove what is papered, it may amount to vandalism.
You’re quite right. My response was intended more for Inquiring Minds than for you, although I see I hit the “reply” bit under your comment. Sorry about that.
I mainly wanted to point out that the news site presented the story deceptively; 90% of readers don’t read the story, they glance at the photo and read the headline. Anyone who did that, at the link Inquiring Minds gave, would be left with the false impression that this was a news story about vandals painting on a wall.
I’m not suggesting Inquiring Minds was being dishonest; it’s plausible that he was deceived by that website, as well.
As Ampersand noted, this case wasn’t vandalism, it was papering. Despite that, I don’t agree with how it was done. Taping the signs up was improper.
Considering that there’s plentiful evidence on this blog that I don’t support vandalism, and no evidence that I do, this comment is disturbingly close to libel.
You have freely labeled opponents of re-defining marriage as bigots. How is that not libelous? Or do you feel that you can operate under different rules than myself?
Oh, wait a minute… you’re perfectly willing to leave me with fewer protections against compelled expressions than say, a Jehovah’s Witness who doesn’t want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, simply because I happen to be a Mormon who views marriage to be between a man and a woman.
I will add that there is NO evidence to presume that I am a bigot on this blog, or anywhere else, for that matter. So there is far more evidence that you have been libeling me.
I don’t think a matter of pure opinion CAN be “libel,” because libel is by definition false, and pure opinion can’t be proven to be false.
To me, someone who advocates for inequality under the law for lesbian and gay couples, is advocating for a bigoted law. That doesn’t mean that I think you’re a bad person, or that you have bad motives. It just means that I think the policy you advocate is one that unjustly discriminates against lesbian and gay couples.
That’s my opinion. You disagree. But since there is no way of objectively determining whose opinion is false or true, it cannot be “libel.”
They are indeed more “in my face” than straight people are. I have never seen “straight pride” parades. Keep your conversations to yourself and don’t insist on assaulting my sensibilities when I don’t want to hear about your latest date, or such escapades, i.e. don’t engage in a form of “sexual harassment.” On the other hand, when I am not made to be aware of someone’s gay status, I can and do treat them with the usual respect I would any other person, depending on their comportment, capacity for reason, and respectful behavior.
Are you at least consistent and hold that straight people shouldn’t talk about that kind of stuff either?
Yes, I would avoid such discussion about “straight” dating or relationship issues, (or simply discuss matters about my “partner”) and be sensitive to potentially offensive language, once I become aware that such a person is gay, or has such proclivities. Still the “default” position is that people in general contexts are straight, and that would still be my initial assumption unless visual, auditory or physical cues suggest otherwise.
That’s a fair cop, though in my experience, you’ll probably find out if someone is gay even if they aren’t pushy about it, like if someone says “Sorry I can’t attend, I promised my boyfriend I’d be with him”, which is the sort of stuff a straight woman would say as well.
Factually incorrect, though it’s exceedingly rare, and requires at least one of the two to be Intersex to a significant degree.
But it takes only one counterexample to make your assertion false.
Look, the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts of 1964-65 weren’t meant to (and no one thought they would) change people’s hearts and minds if they were bigoted and racist. They were meant to change BEHAVIOR. They were meant to begin to even the playing field for blacks, and for them to have all the rights and privileges they should have through the Constitution. We still have much racism in this country, but we DON’T have segregated schools, back-of-the-bus rules, black/white restrooms, and businesses that can refuse to sell to blacks. As the generations proceed onward (and my son is in the vanguard of this), the behaviors that the civil rights movement and laws forced upon the older generation will mean more real interaction between the two races as the years move on. In that sense, changing — by law — certain behaviors, will, over time, change the hearts and minds of those that come behind us.
I believe the same is true of same sex marriage. Change the law, give the gay/lesbian community their Constitutional rights, and with perhaps the exception of rabid evangelists, the hearts and minds of coming generations will change as well.
I cannot be objective here. All I can do is honestly give disclaimers, and reveal as best I can my likely bias.
First – I have a rare medical condition. One easily treatable by any endocrinologist, of which there are many in the city of 300,000 people where I live. Each 6-monthly appointment takes 15 minutes.
I have to travel hundreds of miles, interstate, to a city of nearly 5 million, a trip taking a whole day, because the locals “don’t treat my kind” as it offends their religious sensibilities.
I carry a card, informing any ambulance crew that might transport me from an accident scene, to take me to the one hospital ER within 200 miles that will not refuse me emergency treatment, again “on religious grounds”.
Although I am married, and the biological co-parent of a child from that marriage, our marriage would be voided if ever anyone challenged it.
I’ll give the caselaw as to why:
In the marriage of C and D (falsely called C).(1979) FLC ¶90-636
I’m Intersex. It wasn’t until 4 years after my marriage that this was diagnosed, at a fertility clinic. Apparently though, from the tests available in 1985, I was not a “a combination of both male and female” exhibiting as male, but a case of an “undervirilised male”. I looked male, externally, mostly, and “exhibiting as female” would have been, to put it bluntly, putting lipstick on a pig. I looked like a Linebacker, not a Cheerleader.
In 2005, Puberty hit. Cutting a long story short, after gene tests, ultrasounds, MRIs, plus a new physical exam and test of my endocrinology, the diagnosis was “severe androgenisation of a non-pregnant woman”. By then, I looked at least as much female as I did male before.
My partner ” …did not in fact marry a male but a combination of both male and female, notwithstanding the fact that the husband exhibited as a male” at the very least. Biologically, I’m Female – just Intersex.
So ….
The argument that “it’s against God” – take it up with Him, He made me as I am.
The argument that “two women can’t have children” – my son exists, so you’re wrong.
The argument that “it’s to defend marriage” – you mean “we had to destroy the village in order to save it”? My marriage of 32 years is under threat by old laws, the new ones might defend it. Depends on the wording. If it’s “same-sex or opposite sex” it does me no good. If it’s “two consenting adults” our marriage is safe, and you know what, that means a lot to us.
The argument that “it’s for the children” – many, many women can’t get pregnant. My heart goes out to them. I cheated – I’m the biological father of my son (it only takes one partly working gland, syringes etc). Maybe you should explain to him why you’d destroy his parents’ marriage. For his own good, apparently.
I think you can see why I might not be wholly objective here, and even feel some sense of grievance. I have so far tried to remain polite and respectful.
It hasn’t been easy, in the face of ignorance, or worse, malice. The ignorance I can understand, this stuff is rare, not taught well (if at all) in schools.
Disclaimer: This discussion will only cover relationships between TWO individuals. I don’t wish to entertain slippery slope arguments about the extremely rare desires of 5 men and 7 women and 3 donkeys. And I don’t wish to get into polygamous religions or cultures either (as those boil down to exceptions as well).
This great debate that rages over what exactly is marriage, ought to have us scrambling to distill the fundamentals out of what specifically a ‘marriage’ relationship is composed of. Then we may apply those fundamentals to all the real as well as hypothetical relationships that may be encompassed in a future homosexually-inclusive America. Then we may make the value judgements of what is fair by rule of law.
Marriage and recent history
The association of individuals to cast their mutual lots together for a common purpose to the benefit of themselves is a fundamental belief in Western Civilization. Clinically this is called a ‘contract’. Regardless of the nature in which we view any relationship, being business, being personal, being casual, it ultimately follows some form of contact (sometimes unspoken custom, as in the case of friendship; but more often that not much more formal as in the case of business….and also marriage).
Marriage as a systematic institution (delineated by religious ceremony or legal license) has been on its way out of our culture since the cultural revolution of the 60’s. Co-habitation being more often than not being the form of marriage our society is built around these days. (this is a consistency check for my religious friends; if ceremonially sanctified male-female marriage is the only legitimate source of inter-sex relational stability, then we ought to be legislating against a whole manner of other behaviors in addition to homosexual marriage).
Love
“If the homosexuals want to be as miserable as the rest of us, why not let them?” So the joke goes.
Certainly the Greeks had multiple types/levels of loving relationships. Western Civilization even maintained those types of relationships up until a stigma associated with some until the modern age.
This one simply cannot be debated out. It simply can’t.
From a government perspective, they cannot decide who your friends are or who you care about or who you love.
From a religious aspect, I’m not certain about other religion’s, but Christianity certainly commands you Love your Neighbor as Yourself. Each individual believer will limit the depth of that love to the nature of the relationship.
This aspect to me seems moot.
1. Property
Marriage, by custom, has a property component. I’m not certain if there is a specific term for it in the legal profession, but from this angle, marriage is a “shared property” contract.
Two individuals (by custom a man and woman) choose to throw their wealth and material lots together. Of course, it isn’t even that cut and dry. I know two Christians who, happily wedded, maintain separate bank accounts into which their separate paychecks flow, and from which they make separate financial decisions, minus the house payments and mutual vacations.
Sociologically oriented anthropologists would have us believe that the religious construct followed after it was determined that marriage was the easiest way to simplify inheritance laws.
1.a. How then ought religion view ‘marriage’ from a property standpoint?
My research has yet to produce a religion, who’s views on property are wholly incompatible will the variety of contracts/wills available within the rule of law. So this really ought not to be a hang up for any religion.
1.b. How then ought the government view ‘marriage’ from a property standpoint?
From this aspect, I don’t see how equal treatment under the law can deny homosexuals a similar construct to heterosexual marriage. Of course, does that not already exist?
2. Sex & Procreation
Defenders of heterosexual marriage will use this angle and certainly there is something to be said biologically, that yes, it takes a sperm and an egg to create a child.
Certainly ‘marriage’ from this consideration is a benefit for society, as society cannot advance is future generations are not being, well, generated.
But even so, joining together in a religious ceremony obviously does not enable the act of procreation, as evidenced by scores of fatherless children and many families I know of that aren’t married but still have children.
Attitudes discriminating against bastards having fallen out of the market ever since the market got too big, makes this angle somewhat moot for the anti-homosexual marriage debate.
2.a. How then ought religion view ‘marriage’ from a sexual or procreative standpoint?
Not anyone’s business. Depending on the particular religion’s view of sex outside of a ‘sanctified’ marriage, it can either approve of or disapprove of. Certainly can seek to legislate against it, but at that point, in our republican democracy, society will decide what forms of sexual relations are ‘deviant’ or ‘destructive’ of society. Again, this should wash out as a moot point for members of a religion who benefit from freedom of religion, themselves.
2.b. How then ought the government view ‘marriage’ from a sexual or procreative standpoint?
Ought it punish people who join together in this type of informal and casual marriage without approval and create another life with no consideration of consequence? Probably not, what an incredible invasion of privacy. Certainly attackable from the angle “you can’t legislate morality”.
Then, ought the government encourage procreation via tax-breaks or other benefits? Maybe, but probably not, lest we generate an incentive to make our homes into the human equivalent of puppy mills.
This one also ties to the property aspect of marriage.
But, although the act of procreation is independent of the act of two adults joining their fortunes together, this does segue into the next facet of marriage (which may very well be imperative to be consider hand-in-hand with the procreative aspect).
Child Rearing
Obviously, from the above, we can’t rightly deny 2 homosexuals the liberty to join their possessions and fortunes together in a mutual living agreement, that is a ‘marriage’ from the property aspect. We can’t deny it from a procreative aspect, because biology conveniently does that anyway, which is ‘marriage’ from a biological angle. From a coarse sexual aspect, we don’t wish to tread into people’s bedrooms, however they get their kicks, which is marriage from a ‘physical’ angle.
Certainly here we may find an area that cannot be decided for years.
For the serious beneficial advancement of society, it is the role of *parents* to develop mentally and physically and civically healthy adults.
Some would say that 2 parent households are essential to for the effective raising of a stable individual. Some would say, not necessary.
Some would say of a 2 parent construct, a father and mother, both individually and separately bring equally valuable but distinct qualities to the raising of a balanced individual.
We certainly know that non-functioning adults don’t raise children to be very stable.
Narcissist/materialist parents do not raise healthy children.
Abusive/absent parents do not raise healthy children.
Other incomplete/terribly flawed parents do not raise healthy children.
Who is to say what the outcome of a child raised by two men or two women would be?
We wouldn’t know for a generation. And it would take a great deal of study and certainly discourse that scientists will NEVER engage in to decide
I don’t know if this realm of psychology/sociology can conclusively be decided upon. I don’t think there is enough data to establish a solid position on.
I do know this: if the two parents instill in a child an “others oriented”, “rational”, “temperate”, “just”, “courageous”, “prudent”, “energetic”, “self-motivating” outlook on life, then a child will probably be fine. Does that require a male father and a female mother to truly instill? Donno.
Conclusion
Government: Ought to keep its fingers out of endorsing or condemning any particular ‘contractual’ arrangement of two adults.
Religion: If you truly believe that your particular religion’s definition of marriage is the proper one, guess what, you can’t impose that legally on anyone, lest we violate the “establishment clause” of the 1st Amendment. If your particular religion ends up being right, then that still isn’t your business, but between the non-believer and your particular deity. Golden Rule applies.
I do know, from a simple constitutional angle, if marriage is indeed a religious definition, then certainly a conservative reading of the constitution bars giving tax-breaks to a particular religious definition of marriage via the “Establishment Clause” and even allowing a government to license marriage also would violate the “Establishment Clause”. The flip-side of this being: if ‘marriage’ is a religious definition, then no particular religion ought be compelled to ‘sanctify’ (as per their definition of sanctification) any marriage that it does not deem in accords with their belief system. But hey, that’s freedom of religion.
“1.b. How then ought the government view ‘marriage’ from a property standpoint?
From this aspect, I don’t see how equal treatment under the law can deny homosexuals a similar construct to heterosexual marriage. Of course, does that not already exist?”
No. Similar is not equal. The same but separate is not equal. The same but called different names is not equal. Settled in Brown. Brown decides this issue. In that regard, it’s amazing it took so long, because nobody will ever dare challenge Brown
Yes, my language was vague. It should have read “I don’t see how equal treatment under the law can deny homosexuals the same…..”
In other words homosexuals are in their rights to dispose of and associate their property as they see fit. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.
Brown says this is NOT equal treatment, by definition. Marriage for some, something else for others. Not equal.
Ok, Jack, I don’t disagree with you. Not sure how to reword my comment thusly. I tried.
tex,
I think the issue is your next statement was “Of course, does that not already exist?”
Since you were referencing government view of property rights under marriage…no, that doesn’t already exist generally. A couple states have it, and a couple states have it without name, but the federal government directly denies it (DOMA).
Really? Two or more consenting adults of the same sex can’t pool their property together mutually?
4 guys I know pooled their property in a communal living arrangement for the 4 years they went to college together. This was in Texas.
From a purely property rights aspect, nothing was in place to stop them from doing so.
But if that is the source of the objection, then I’m not sure why that wasn’t reasserted after my initial wording correction.
Marriage has special rules about property rights that are not available to those that are not in marriage. Survivorship (depending on state), special rules in inheritance law that avoid taxes, most of the tax code itself.
I’ll give you a personal example. I bought a house with my ex-wife when we were engaged. We bought it as a joint property. If one of us had died before we got married, the survivor person would have had to pay taxes on the $12K of equity we each had at the start. Once we were married, that possible tax bill disappeared.
Fair enough. You’ll note I’ve amended my comment.
1.b. How then ought the government view ‘marriage’ from a property standpoint?
From this aspect, I don’t see how equal treatment under the law can deny homosexuals the same construct to heterosexual marriage.
“Brown says this is NOT equal treatment, by definition. Marriage for some, something else for others. Not equal.”
Other than the name it is equal. Segregated schools were unequal. Less funding,poorer education.
Yes, but obviously the name matters, or those who are opposing same sex marriage wouldn’t care, would they?
“Yes, but obviously the name matters, or those who are opposing same sex marriage wouldn’t care, would they?”
Equal under the law. Same legal rights and privileges. Religious people see marriage as holy and, well religious.
You know,come to think of it though,why should they care if gays get married? They don’t care if non-virgins get married,they don’t care if divorced people get married,time after time,etc. Well, they care but not to the point of making it illegal for them. If it’s a matter of sinners defiling the sanctity of marriage the majority are in that club.
You see,Jack? My thinking has changed since reading the comments here.
All in all,I’m thinking marriage is what the couple makes it. If it’s holy to them before God,great.
You can’t discuss something as being not equal treatment if the circumstances are not equal to start with. Just as it is nonsense to believe that male and female behavior, temperament, capabilities, and so on is all about environmental factors, and has nothing to do with intrinsic biology, genetics, physical development and hormonal influences, so it is nonsense to imagine that the circumstances of gays who wish to enter marriage are equivalent to those of traditionally defined marriage. Notwithstanding that, I do accept that sometimes biology DOES confuse matters, and furthermore, can produce different levels of confusion at different points in physical development. The issues, once again, can be resolved with the acceptance of civil unions, which provide all of the elements of marriage by a different name. If justice be served, and, somehow the state MUST get involved (which is a whole other discussion), equal TREATMENT under the law should the objective of the “separate is not equal” controversy. Equal NAMES should be irrelevant.
Jack hit this earlier. If equality in name should be irrelevant, why are you arguing so hard for separate names? If it’s irrelevant what the names are, why do you care?
The issue is over who gets the keep the traditional name to mean the traditional meaning. It should be obvious if you have been reading that traditional marriage, and the name associated with it, DOES make a difference to those who believe in it. If homosexuals are the ones wanting to acquire the legal elements of traditional marriage, they should be satisfied with such “equal treatment” under the law, and respectful personal treatment in the workplace and the public arena. That IS, what is being discussed, isn’t it? Or will you and your type NOT be satisfied until you have ripped our religious beliefs from our souls as well? Oops, sorry, you don’t believe in souls, I guess.
Peter, this isn’t about you. Honestly. I don’t care what’s in your soul.
The only thing I want is formal legal equality between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. That’s it I don’t care in the slightest what you beleive in your heart, or what your Church believes, or anything else.
Formal legal equality. Nothing more, nothing less. Please stop acting like this is about you. It’s really not.
I speak for myself, but also for those in the larger camp whose beliefs may be similar to my own. It’s not personal. That said, I have, through the extensive discussion, come to accept without malice the idea of legally protected same sex unions. At this stage, my only remaining issue is what you call them.
Peter, that’s great! I’m glad we’re so close to agreement.
I would propose that the government calls all legally recognized marriages “civil marriages” in all its paperwork and laws and so forth.
And individual people, and also churches, can call whatever they want to marriage, according to the dictates of their own belief systems. So no one has to say “Bob and Rick are married” if they don’t want to.
What’s wrong with that?
It makes a difference…so what’s the difference? If the difference is that opposite sex marriage is better than same sex marriage, then different names are not equal treatment under the law.
Is there a different difference?
But there is still a fundamental difference between a same-sex couple and an opposite-sex couple.
A male/female couple, as a rule, can produce biological children naturally. The male/female couples that don’t are exceptions to the rule.
A male/male or female/female couple, as a rule, cannot. I am unaware of any same-sex couple producing a biological child on their own.
Granted, advanced in medical technology allow for surrogacy/artificial insemination, but in those cases, the same-sex couple still has to bring in genetic material from outside the relationship. Even then, only half of the couple is biologically the parent of the child.
Absent the advances in medical technology, the only way a same-sex couple would have a child tied to JUST ONE of the members biologically would be for that member to have sex outside the relationship and obviate vows involving “forsaking all others.” In the vernacular, it’d be called cheating on one’s partner, which would be seen as grounds to dissolve the relationship.
These two relationships are not entirely alike, and as such, I think to call one a “same-sex partnership” and the other a “marriage” is not trying to play “separate but equal,” it’s being accurate about the differences between the relationships, and as such, perhaps it may be appropriate to develop different plans.
Biology does not change because of a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court.
That’s a fundamental difference between same sex couples and opposite sex couples who want to have or are capable of having their own biological children. There is that same difference between opposite sex couples who can’t have children or don’t intend to and opposite sex couples who want to have or are capable of having their own biological children. Neither the churches nor the state inquire about this intent or ability as a condition of granting permission to marry, so clearly, this is an after-the-fact, desperation argument concocted because same-sex marriage opponents realize that the original reasons there was no gay marriage—that 1) nobody considered it 2) religious morality had pronounced homosexual relations as sinful, and 3) gays were required by social disapproval to hide their status no longer apply or can’t be defended. Unfortunately, the children argument makes no sense either. I adopted my son; gays can adopt children. Mothers who aren’t married have children and the unit is recognized as a family without marriage at all.
All that remains is that committed same-sex couples can’t occupy the same official status as opposite gender couples, and as a rseult are stigmatized and accorded secondary citizenship. THAT’s the only real fundamental difference.
Neither the churches nor the state inquire about this intent or ability as a condition of granting permission to marry
Some churches do inquire about this. Catholic Church dogma requires procreative ability, but it’s ignored by, well, most U.S. Catholics. When I was getting married, the priest was perfectly fine with a “maybe down the road.” Think of it like the contraception ban of the church, or the capital punishment ban of the church. Nearly all U.S. Catholics ignore one or the other, if not both.
And the church doesn’t declare a marriage null and void if it turns out that the couple was infertile, or falsely represented its intent
Normally not, but sometimes yes. The doctrine does say that a marriage intended to be childless is invalid. I can like of one of my family members being granted a contested annulment on those grounds.
Of topic:
I’d be curious to know when that doctrine was established and whether it can be associated in the time-frame that the Plague reduced Europe’s population by 30-60% (depending on the source you trust) and it was imperative to procreate.
I’ll try to remember to ask my ex-Jesuit father this weekend. He might know.
Not your question, but here’s a generally related link explaining how Vatican II hasn’t lessened the procreative requirement: http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/vatican-ii-and-the-two-ends-of-marriage.html
Is that an issue?
I don’t think it should matter to society or the Government what religious groups think about something. I was just correcting some misinformation.
good
While the courts may legalize same gender “marriage”, it will never be a marriage. Marriage is a Sacrament between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN! This is my Roman-Catholic faith. It’s my world view. Make no mistake, the faithful will be villified and persecuted. Other forms of “marriage” will also be demanded. Once God is discarded, every evil is tolerated. No, I do not hate homosexuals. I count many as acquaintances and a few as friends, but I will not compromise my faith for political correctness or popularity.
I do not ask you to compromise your faith. Your church should be absolutely free to choose which marriages to allow in their chapels, and to turn down same-sex wedding ceremonies. Nothing about the state recognizing marriages that you, personally, don’t recognize, requires you to compromise your faith.
Regarding your prediction of persecution, I don’t think that a significant level of persecution will happen. For instance, within my lifetime, it was commonplace for the police to raid public places where gay and lesbian people gathered and arrest everyone they could. Lesbian and gay people were sometimes beaten by police. Many prominent leaders of the current movement to “defend traditional marriage,” such as Robert George and Orson Scott Card, spoke out in favor of sodomy laws and police arrests of lesbian and gay people (although Mr. Card has more recently tried to walk his earlier statements back).
There is zero prospect of that sort of treatment happening to Roman Catholics in the United States. The kind of persecution that lgbt people have endured – and that some leaders of the “traditional marriage” movement have defended and advocated – is not something you ever have to fear will happen to you. (And that’s the way it should be; no one should be subject to that treatment.)
How are you any different from the a 1950s racist? Many of them based their racism on the bible. Heck, people still are racist and use their religion as the reason why.
Also, the government can not (and nobody is trying to get it to) change the definition of marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church. That’s been previously covered in this thread.
Laws against inter-ethnic marriage cannot be compared to laws against same gender “marriage”. Those laws were created to strengthen and perpetuate segregation. British colonies, unlike the French, Spanish, and Portuguese never developed a third ethnic class. With the exception of places like New Orleans, America has always been a two racial tier society. We don’t have a tradition of an empowered inter-ethnic class. Segregation could not have worked, except by the one drop rule. Society has a vested interest in protecting the inalienable rights of children to be raised by a mother and a father. Both genders impart very different, yet essential information to a child. We are formed by opposites, male and female, a complimentary union. Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” makes clear that without an understanding of the purpose of human sexuality, we fall into disorder. Sex is unitive AND procreative. Though some are infertile, it is the male and female which creates human life. Twenty three chromosomes from the mother and 22, plus one for gender from the father. It is very selfish to deliberately deny a child a father or mother. It is disordered to use parts of human beings, i.e, eggs and sperm to create life outside of the Sacrament of Marriage. There are none so blind as those that refuse to see!
Before the council of Trent, which pronounced marriage to be a sacrament henceforth – was it possible to marry?
The Church officially named the sacraments for the first time in Canon Law at the Council of Trent in 1547.
Canon law permits the marriage of a Catholic with an unbaptised non-Catholic, but as of the least 7 years (IIRC) forbids one between a Catholic and a baptised non-Catholic.
Are such unions “marriages”?
What about the ceremonies between two non-Catholics, or ceremonies conducted outside the Church?
By Canon law, less than 15% of unions recognised as “marriage” in the US are married. Consequently, while you may hold whatever beliefs you wish, please mention this fact as well. That you believe Gays cannot marry each other, Jews cannot marry each other (but can marry Catholics with the appropriate dispensation), Baptists cannot marry each other, or in fact anyone else, even Catholics.
Of course if proper dispensations are applied for, or covalidation granted, the partnerships become marriages. But not before.
If you do not believe this, you are heretic. Like most people who profess to be Roman-Catholic in the USA.
As an atheist, who doesn’t believe in gods, it behooves me to know exactly what I don’t believe in. Canon law is simple, Talmudaic law another matter entirely.
I should also mention I’m Intersex. The existence of Intersex people poses problems for the doctrine of the Theology of the Body, but with sufficient handwaving, they can be explained away in most cases.
Cases like this though:
http://www.usrf.org/news/010308-guevedoces.html
are as fatal to this doctrine as the existence of the moons of Jupiter were fatal to geocentricism.
Of course some ultra-conservative catholics don’t accept that even now,
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/
Coretta, Can’t you see that this just boils down to “i don’t agree with this form of prejudice and discrimination, but I do agree with THIS form”? The supposed purpose or rationale is irrelevant here. You don’t agree with how some other Americans are wired and choose to live their lives, and so want to partition them off from you and people like you by denying them access to some of the institutions other American take for granted.
Although not yet rivalling the sheer volume of posts generated by Applebee’s, Jack, you ought to at least be satisfied that this topic generated a greater ratio of “Expected Discussion : Actual Discussion” than did the Applebee’s thread.
Also, I’m still curious how my wording needed to adjusted in our separate but equal back and forth above.
Jack, not only do I not agree with the concept of “same gender” marriage; I regard the very movement advocating it to be intrinsically evil. It’s truly an idea, not of God. Proponents can call me bigoted. That’s fine. This is one issue I will gladly accept persecution in opposing. Sexual intercourse was designed by God for procreation and the unity of male and female, husband and wife. We reject truth about sexuality and deify it as a god. This is one issue on which I stand with my Church and faith, both in and outside the voting booth!
I don’t think you understand the definition of persecution. At least that misuse isn’t lonely. It has its friends of appeal to religion, and counter-factual statements, projection, and hubris to keep it company.
Yikes. How can it be evil? If it’s evil, then you must regard all those who doesn’t embrace your faith’s moral code as evil, which reeks of radical Islam to me. Since most people don’t embrace it, do you really feel you live surrounded by evil? That’s a terrifying way to go through existence.
My impression – and I hope she’ll correct me if I’m wrong here – is that of course she regards all those who don’t adhere to the tenets of her faith as gravely mistaken. Varying from sinful to actively promoting evil.
Yes it is the same in Radical Islam, but also in mainstream Islam,mainstream Judaism, mainstream Catholicism, mainstream Presbyterianism etc etc..
This is not a minority or fringe view, it’s the official line that all adherents to the faith are supposed to believe.
Yes, it is a terrifying way of going through existence. But it keeps the Faithful in line.
There are very many “Jews” who eat bacon, “Catholics” who re-marry after divorce, and others who are religious-in-name-only. While they’re useful for bulking up the numbers, priests, pastors, imams etc face a never-ending battle against people being merely human, and have to constantly call them to orthodoxy.
However, I can’t be objective here. I try not to be prejudiced, despite my personal experiences. I’ve found that good people will often pervert even the worst of doctrines into reasonable ones, while bad people will pervert even the best of doctrines into inhuman cruelty.
I can tell tgt is back and in fine form. This thread is impossibly long!! Sorry for hitting you over the noggin,tgt. I should have known better but dang,it’s not always easy to know where you’re coming from. It’s not so much what you say but the impressions you give. Is he totally intolerant of this group,not see any fault in that group.,etc.
I wouldn’t say fine form.
His conclusion is accurate but his methodology is only half rational.
Where am I missing rationality in this thread? We had a bit of a run in in the brian subthread, but that was due to clarity issues, and was in a spin off argument.
Simple in concept, but sometimes hard in practice: Don’t assume I mean anything other than what I say.
Our minds are wired to find patterns and shortcuts in understanding. We’re also tribal creatures who pretty much all think more highly of ourselves than we should. It’s something we have to fight. If we’re dealing with people we like or espouse ideas we like, it’s easy to let bad reasoning sneak through. If we’re dealing with people we don’t like or espouse ideas we don’t like, it’s easy to ignore good arguments.
When you hear my arguments, your first instinct is to see an atheist challenging you. They must be wrong. I have the same first response when you respond to me. I think we’ve found though, that neither of us is evil. We don’t always agree, but we can have that check: “I know you’re not evil…what did you actually say? What does that actually mean?”
If I say idea X is wrong, that’s all I mean. I don’t mean the group of people who believe X are evil, and I don’t mean the anti-Xers are necessarily good. One idea doesn’t indict everything someone believes. If I thought the group of people who believe X were evil, I’d tell you. I don’t hide my beliefs. If you think belief X implies bad belief Y, say such, and explain the connection. That gives me a chance to point out a flaw in your argument…or change my opinion.
“….If I say idea X is wrong, that’s all I mean. I don’t mean the group of people who believe X are evil, and I don’t mean the anti-Xers are necessarily good. One idea doesn’t indict everything someone believes. If I thought the group of people who believe X were evil, I’d tell you. I don’t hide my beliefs. If you think belief X implies bad belief Y, say such, and explain the connection. That gives me a chance to point out a flaw in your argument…or change my opinion.”
You’re right. You said it well. *hugs*
tgt are you on Facebook? You can friend me if you want. http://facebook.com/karla.m.robinett
If I ever connect my psuedonym to my actual person here, I will. As it is, I like to keep them fairly separate.
It’s no real loss for you in the interim, I doubt I check facebook once a month, and nearly all of those checks are for event invitations and friendings.
What logically follows gay marriage is gay divorce court. Such a circumstance may highlight inequities in current family law: Who pays alimony to who? Who gets custody of the kids? Who gets to keep the house? Etc… etc… etc…
Nothing worse than love gone bad.
Best comment in the thread so far.
Aside from that, gay marriage, in a strange way, might even be a victory for bourgeois morality (I use that term in the positive sense); if even people who can’t get each other pregnant are choosing to take responsibility for each other, what excuse do the rest of us have?
RE: Bourgeois morality. Good point. Who knows what the “unintended consequences” are going to be? As you noted, there might be some good ones.
There’s another problem with the whole “Marriage is between a Man and a Woman” idea. How, exactly, do you tell which sex someone is?
— Littleton v. Prange (9 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 872 (2000))
This week, an Arizona judge refused to grant a divorce because they were not satisfied that a valid marriage had been contracted in Hawaii. Other states’ Birth certificates are not always honoured, despite the Full Faith and Credit clause.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21978341
Turns out to be unimportant if the process is a “civil union.” Church and religion stay out of it. Man-intersex, woman-intersex have their state-sponsored contractual relationship with attendant obligations, privileges and risks. Why is that not enough? It seems to me the argument for civil unions is ESPECIALLY cogent under these circumstances.
No, jurisdictions have “civil unions” but exclude Intersex people from them. M-M, F-F only, with M-F being marriage.
Trans people can be in similar situations de facto – as in Arizona, where in order to marry, they must first prove they have been sterilised. The same situation as in Sweden until recently – that also required proof of the destruction of any stored sperm and eggs.
I don’t think you have any concept of just how deep some of the hatred and malice is on this issue. As with same-sex marriage, logic or rationality has nothing to do with most of the opposition.
Currently, Medicare follows a decision that withdrew previously existing medical coverage for Trans people in 1981, labelling it as “experimental..untried…unproven”, albeit effective.
In view of the 30+ years since then, with hundreds of thousands of successful treatments round the world – 30,000 in the US alone – it was proposed to at least look at reviewing the issue.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicare/291063-hhs-board-to-consider-covering-sex-changes-under-medicare-medicaid
The howling mob soon put a stop to that. The Far Left cried that this was a Right-Wing plot to destroy and “convert” Gays and Lesbians (as is the practice in Iran), the Far Right cried that it was a Left-Wing plot to destroy Family Values.
Only the medical profession, and Trans people supported it. Politicians on all sides fell over themselves in decrying it as “going too far”.
I can understand where the concern is that coverage for sex-change operations could be highly abused, in an era of way-way-way-out-of-control health care costs, when there is the potential for it. The specter of those not biologically afflicted with ambiguous genitalia, and the like, piling on to the overloaded wagon for matters that could more properly be termed “personal choice” is likely responsible for some of this “thinking.” Entry criteria that could not be precisely defined and precisely adhered to would create such a moral hazard.
See my reply at https://ethicsalarms.com/2013/03/28/comment-of-the-day-the-same-sex-marriage-wars/comment-page-1/#comment-69542
It would be difficult to find a situation less prone to such problems!
“Spectre” is apt, meaning something mythical and scary, wholly without any rational basis for believing it. “Boogeyman” would also be accurate.
Jack, I am a Roman-Catholic, not a “cafeteria” Catholic. Yes, I believe that the Roman-Catholic Church, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit teaches truth on matters of faith and morals. Does this mean that all Catholics live truth. No. Catholics are fallen, sinful, flawed human beings. What has been revealed through sacred scripture and sacred tradition on matters of faith and morals is without error. This includes what has been revealed regarding human sexuality, marriage, and family. Do you have to be Roman-Catholic to know truth? No, truth is self-evident. It is revealed to the most ignorant in Natural Law. The fullness of truth resides in the Roman-Catholic faith and in varying degrees in others. So yes, I take an absolutist stance on the Sacrament of Marriage and the purpose of human sexuality. On matters not of faith and morals, I can be persuaded to consider other views. This issue is a matter of faith and morals for me and millions of others. For us, there is no compromise. Believe me, it is a difficult stance. I know and love many homosexuals. I wish them no harm, but I cannot support any effort to legalize same gender marriage. Faith comes first for me. Finally, I believe in good and evil. I believe there is an active, tangible evil force in the universe. I truly believe this movement is inspired by him. I like you Jack. I like your blog. I’m not a fanatic. I’m just Roman-Catholic.
There”s no reason why you should change your views.
You wish others no harm. See Matthew 22:39-40. The rest, as they say, is commentary.
If it makes you uneasy that you don’t think that atheists, jews, or baptists can be married, that’s not something anyone else can really help you with.
If you advocate that jews, gays, baptists and atheists not be allowed to “marry” – as marriage is impossible for them – that is your right too, to argue your case based on your wish to see the US become a Catholic Theocracy (at least in this limited regard).
However… if you are advocating that some of those barred by your Faith should be allowed to “marry” – even though they can’t really be married according to he tenets of your Faith – while others should not – then it’s up to you to state reasons why – or face accusations of being at best inconsistent, at worst hypocritical.
No=one doubts your faith in all of this, nor your wish to do Right. I just don’t think you’ve thought this through.
I know and love many homosexuals. I wish them no harm, but I cannot support any effort to legalize same gender marriage.
This doesn’t make sense. You mean, you wish them no additional harm. You’re fine with the current harm in our laws.
—
Other issues that are matters of faith and morals for Roman Catholics:
* No birth control
* No childless marriages
* No death penalty
I assume you’re against:
* The legality of birth control
* The legality of entering a marriage with no intent to have children. Forced divorce for all infertile couples.
* Any state having the death penalty.
This is just a selective appeal to religion.
At this stage of human experience, knowledge, and civilization, it is clear to me that aversion to same-sex marriage is the Ick Factor, no matter how often it is justified by faith, morality, psychology, tradition, history, fear of unintended consequences or anything else. It might be the best example of “Ick!” being mistaken for ethics that I know of. All the arguments against it here, many of them erudite, well-argued and articulate, can ultimately be reduced to “EW!!! Ick!”
“All the arguments against it here, many of them erudite, well-argued and articulate, can ultimately be reduced to “EW!!! Ick!”
Come on,Jack,really? Don’t you think some of it could be fear of latent homosexual desire? 😛
The Roman-Catholic Church recognizes marriage in other religions. Truth resides outside the Church in varying degrees. She does not advocate polygamy or polyandry, as Jesus Christ himself condemned this practice in the Gospel. Polygamy was created by man. God intended one man to marry one woman, husband and wife, until natural death. Jesus is the bridegroom. The Church is the bride. A sacrament gives Grace. Right form and matter must be present for a valid sacrament. A marriage must consist of one man and one woman. Two men or two women is improper matter and form. Also, sex is unitive and procreative. Infertility may occur, but the objective purpose of sexual intercourse is to be unitive and procreative. The procreative act must take place within the body of the woman. Invitro fertilization, the buying and selling of eggs or sperm, surrogates, etc., these practices are grave sins. No, I’m not trying to institute a theocracy. I’m just defending why I oppose same gender “marriage” and vote accordingly.
Could you expand a little. In what way is that “the objective purpose of sexual intercourse”? How are you defining “objective,” and how do we know what “the objective purpose” of something that occurs in nature is? And, last but perhaps most important, what makes you sure that sexual intercourse cannot have more than one purpose?
@Ampersand,
I refer you to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm for a more thorough explanation of the Roman-Catholic Church’s teaching on human sexuality and marriage. Sex in Catholic teaching has a two fold purpose. It is unitive and procreative. The Vatican archive is an invaluable resource for a clear explanation of Catholic teaching.
So when you say “objective purpose,” what you mean is “because the Vatican says so.” That’s not “objective”; that’s just your religious belief.
You have every right to your religion, of course, but you don’t have the right to use the civil law as a tool for forcing your religious beliefs on other Americans.
Don’t you see anything wrong with using the state to force other people to abide by your religious beliefs and practices?
That’s sexuality, not marriage: “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”
It’s also Vatican II comments that were downplayed from most of the hierarchy from their inception, and have only become less approved of by the higher ups as time has passed.