SoulCast - on the nature of gay marriage

on the nature of gay marriage

silverwhisper posted on Aug 31, 2006 | views: 2525 | Tags: gay marriage, love, on the nature of, relationships, gay, religion, marriage, legal rights, sex, Civil Partnership, dogma, life, circumcision, Homosexuality, Jesus, legality, Jehovah, the Nazi States of America, Bible, Veronica, gays

i’ve previously mentioned that i consider myself straight but gay-friendly (see link for what that means). i’ve also mused on what it is to be gay. and there’ve been a few other discussions of gay marriage, which haven’t really hit a lot of views or comments.

but i don’t think i’ve really seen anyone propound an argument re: gay marriage, either pro or con. and because it’s important to me, i suppose i’ll take a crack at it.

please understand what is meant by gay marriage: what i mean is the ability for gays to marry their partners, to call their partners wives/husbands, just as we do, to enjoy the legal protections and rights afforded by spouse status: in short, to do all the things that hetero couples have been doing since time immemorial.

it does not mean forcing a house of worship to perform a marriage that it does not sanction. indeed, it never means that, except for in the hands of socially conservative fearmongerers.

let me set out the various usual suspects against gay marriage. i will of course proceed to annihilate them. if you oppose gay marriage: yes, that’s a snarky gauntlet that i challenge you to pick up. :>

“but gayness is unnatural!”
this argument is utter crap. “unnatural” of course is just a pejorative term meaning either against god’s plan or contrary to nature. if you really want to find a biblical prohibition against homosexuality, you’ll have to look pretty hard. if you’re a christian, the jewish bible is of no use: when christ declares the ten commandments null and void and propounds the golden rule, he completely destroys the validity and applicability of what jews call the law. you can take refuge in the pauline epistles, but as we all know, those weren’t christ’s teachings: they were paul’s, and as a former pharisee, he’s bound to be just a tad inclined to retain his rabbinic training. but all of this is irrelevant anyway: the separation of church and state clause means that this is not a valid basis for law in the US. plus, you’ll find homosexual behavior in well over 1000 different species in nature, esp bonobo chimps, IIRC.

status: busted.

“gay marriage is against my religion!”
that’s nice, but your religious beliefs do not form the basis for law, even if your name happens to be judge roy moore of alabama. :>

status: busted.

“marriage is about one man and one woman”
really? so despite the fact that for a lot of human history, marriage hasn’t actually been only about one man and one woman, that’s what it means now?

status: busted.

“marriage is about children!”
so obviously, post-menopausal women and otherwise infertile couples shouldn’t ever be permitted to marry, either? this argument is of course complete nonsense.

status: busted.

”marriage is sacred!”
yes, and that’s why it’s OK for britney spears to have been married for 36 way-too-publicized hours? bah!

status: busted.

“but if we allow gay marriage, it will lead to polygamy!”
balderdash! this is a classic ad hominem argument that seeks to smear gay marriage by bringing in the utterly unrelated topic of polygamy.

status: busted.

seriously: folks, there’s absolutely no legitimate reason why gay marriage shouldn’t be legal. none at all. the government shouldn’t be in the business of who should and should not marry. it’s just plain dumb.

so is this making any sense? are you unconvinced? do you think you have an argument i haven’t utterly disemboweled? comment and let me know.

ed

send to a friend Delicious

del.icio.us Digg

Digg

StumbleUpon

Comments

hottmom said on Sep 01, 2006....
No argument here, I completely agree. Also love your post
Girlyklvj said on Sep 01, 2006....
Wow, I love the way you clearly set out each of the reasons i have heard before about "Gay Marriage". Also the way that you concisely answer it.

Although i am not a huge marriage fan either gay or hetro, surly the fact of the matter is that two people share a life and share the legal benefits.

So hear hear.

Well blogged and a very interesting topic.
madstorm said on Sep 01, 2006....
Gay marriage? ... why not? ... let them also enjoy the pain and misery everybody else's marriage suffers!!

At least they won't argue about who left the toilet seat up... you see? ... there are advantages!!
nytquill17 said on Sep 01, 2006....
I'm with you! I'm not particularly religious now, but I was raised in a strong religious family and environment. In fact, my family was fairly enlightened about religious issues, well-read and well-educated. So I learned to think out my religion. But when it came to homosexuality, it was like everyone suddenly went stupid. I was always a bit put off by that, and it was one of the first things that made me start to think twice about my family's beliefs.

The argument I always heard against homosexuality (which never made sense to me) is that "Well...God didn't put that there, so it can't be right." Or "Sometimes we just have to do what God says, without understanding why. God says homosexuality is evil and wrong, and we just have to go with that."

But homosexuality is and has been "natural" throughout history, both in animals and in humans. And if you believe that God created everything in nature, everything natural, then you have to accept the fact that God must have created homosexuality - so he DID "put that there". And if he created it, why would he say that it's evil and wrong? One could argue that we humans, through our free will, somehow screwed up God's original intentions (similar to the Great Flood story - originally God felt everything he made was good, but then we got it so screwed up he erased us and started over)...except that animals, which have no free will (according to this argument, anyway) and therefore can't screw anything up or make immoral choices, also exhibit homosexual tendencies. So it can't be "evil and wrong."

Plus the fact that God gave us our brains, our curiosity and desire for explanations - for science and reason, in other words. This is the same God who created physics, chemistry, all the rules that make our world make sense. He wouldn't ask us to suddenly become unintelligent and stupidly follow directions without any reason! (again, I'm not religious anymore, but I'm trying to argue from that standpoint since that's where most of the objections come from).

And the same parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuals to death also tell us not to "suffer a witch to live." But we don't do the witchhunt thing anymore - so why do we pay attention to the part about gays?

My take on it - I don't have any researched proof to back it up, but it makes sense to me - is that most anti-gay cultural traditions stem from these kinds of hardscrabble tribal cultures, like the ancient Hebrews or the ancient Muslims, that were constantly facing threats to their survival. Anyone who didn't contribute to procreation, therefore, was useless or even a threat to their society. Not to mention that whole human tendency to fear and destroy what we don't understand, aren't familiar with, and can't assimilate into something we deem more acceptable.

One of the things I learned growing up is that the Bible can be separated into religious doctrine, which is true for the ages ("Thou shalt not kill," "God so loved the world..."), and sociocultural mores, which apply only to the time and culture in which the text was written - women must sit quietly in assemblies and if they have any questions, ask their husbands when they get home; a man who rapes a virgin must pay her family the bride price and then marry her (!). Homosexuality definitely falls into the second category, not the first - and our culture has certainly evolved beyond the point where we are in any way threatened by gays, so this falls into the list of biblical instruction we can disregard in our time.

I'm all for gay marriage and gay rights! I'm not gay myself, but hey...these people are human just like the rest of us, and if you stop to think about it instead of just knee-jerking, there's really nothing "wrong with them." They, and them getting married, don't pose any threat to us whatsoever! They deserve the same happiness (or misery, as someone else has said), and the same rights and protections, as any of the rest of us.

Good for you for posting this, Silver! Very well-expressed :-)
bridfair said on Sep 01, 2006....
I completely agree as well. There is no legitimate reason...most are religious-based and I'm pretty sure one of the founding principles of our government is a separation of church and state...though some people may forget that at times:)
FaithfulDisciple said on Sep 01, 2006....
If you ask me, the marriage title is just a legal status which affords legal rights to the married partners. With or without the benefit of marriage, any partner may choose to live in a union they believed best suits them.

Please note that I said the word choose as this is based on a person's free will. It's not about what is right or wrong, it's about people making choices to a lifestyle and living it according to their choices. The responsibility for such choices is solely for the partners to bear..

The real benefit that a legal marriage can bring into the union is the semblance of legality as in division of properties or administration of wills in case of death or separation of one partner.
happykat said on Sep 01, 2006....
I agree with you, bud.

However, there is one tiny thing that you forgot. Majority.

Theoretically speaking, the laws are supposed to reflect the views and mores of the majority of our soicety.

*pause*

I had a good point to this.....until I was distracted, so....um...nevermind. I'll come back when i have more time to repsond.
silverwhisper said on Sep 01, 2006....
thanks, guys!

nytquill: that was truly impressive--my compliments!

FD: well said, sir.

HK: that's not entirely true. the laws are supposed to reflect the views of existing law (i.e., not contradict the constitution, other previous law or caselaw) in addition to what the majority want. that's a point that someone of our acquaintance conveniently keeps forgetting every time the matter comes up, owing no doubt to his obsession w/ "boiling everything down".

further, your point falsely supposes that a majority of americans oppose gay marriage. this is not true. every poll i've seen has it pretty evenly split. nowhere near a majority or consensus appears to exist.

:>

ed
InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....
Great post, ed! As a lesbian with a partner (who I call my wife), the national uproar over gay marriage concerns me. My wife and I do not hurt anyone, have jobs as professionals, live in a nice house, and we have two great kids who do well at school, have friends, and live a "normal" life (God I hate that word).

It boggles my mind when people state that homosexuality is wrong because it is a choice. This of course, is the most absurd statement anyone could make. Being gay is the single hardest obstacle I face in my life, and trust me, I face A LOT of obstacles. Who would choose to make life more difficult, be the object of scorn, or be victim to hate crimes and prejudice? If I had a choice in the matter (though I love my wife very much), I would be straight just to make things easier on myself. Plus, maybe my family would like and accept me again.

Unfortunately, I cannot be straight. I have tried. I had many relationships with men in high school and college, which never satisfied me, and always made me feel bad about myself. Finally, when I decided to explore "the dark side," I found happiness. I actually derived pleasure from sex when I was with a woman.

I worry when there is mention of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that this country is on a path similar to the nazis. The pink triangle as a symbol of homosexuality originally appeared when it was used by the nazis to mark gays (like the star of david was used to mark jews). After the constitutional amendment, we will likely have to register as gays with the government. I will not wear an arm band for this country.

I wish people were more educated about what it means to be gay. I have heard fundamentalist christians state that if our country allowed gays to marry, then people would also start marrying animals. I think there is a diconnect between homosexuality and beastiality, but I am just a loony dyke afterall. Also, I only lived in the south briefly, so I am not sure about the complexities of relationships with farm animals.

I am not out to "convert" anyone; I just want to express my sexuality freely. This country once banned blacks and whites marrying (anti-miscegenation statutes); perhaps someday the gay marriage issue will be similarly remembered.
InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....
I would also like to add that I find it amusing that M2F or F2M transsexuals can legally marry someone of the "opposite/same" sex if they have had gender-altering surgery. This seems to fly in the face of banning gay marriage.

I guess if you are so gay that you have to change your sexual organs then the union of marriage is acceptable. But if you are only gay enough to want a same-sex relationship without permanently altering your organs, too bad, you are out of luck.
quidnunc said on Sep 01, 2006....
another blockbuster and thought provoking post. let me get back to you on this one.
silverwhisper said on Sep 01, 2006....
IPJ: i was rather hoping to get your insights on the matter. i share your view that some day this furor will be viewed like the anti-miscegenation laws, for which i reserve a particular scorn. and i somehow forgot about the transgendered but that's an excellent point: my thanks!

ed
InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....
Well ed, if there was ever a post on which it is appropriate for me to comment, this is it.
silverwhisper said on Sep 01, 2006....
[chuckles]

yeah, i suppose so. :>

well, of course there's always this one, too... :D

[ducks]

ed
InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....
LMAO. I just read that one. Well, you've got the right idea there... I met a boy in law school who enjoyed it more than sex (and btw, he was a boy not a man), but I always thought he was weird and putting me on.

[does something involving hitting and a fish]
SeanRenaud said on Sep 01, 2006....
“but gayness is unnatural!”
Gayness is largely unnatural. Just because you can find examples of it in nature doesn't mean much. Dolphins want to have sex with human females, emus also. Dogs hump anything that moves, and a lot of stuff that doesn't. Whoopty do. The part about God is an entirely different issue, as natural and written by God are different. But to tackle that one Jesus may have overturned the old laws but God making Adam and Eve would still stand logically speaking. If you go further and take into acount that the purpose of sex in some people's mind is procreation not recreation and you're nailed on two counts.

status: Yatta!

“gay marriage is against my religion!
that’s nice, but your religious beliefs do not form the basis for law, even if your name happens to be judge roy moore of alabama. :>

Then explain the controversy over abortion, or the laws passed in Alabama this year. Explain how inteligent design and creationism are being taught. Explain why In God we Trust is on our money and in our Pledge.

status: Cowabunga! (Though I hope you win again)

“marriage is about one man and one woman”
Yes really. We've defined as such in the United States for quite sometime. How it was done in ancient Egypt, Colonial America or even modern day Italy can serve only as an example, not as a reason why we should do it that way.

status: I can dodge bullets.

“marriage is about children!”
Many people believe that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt where as the other two groups you mentioned should.

status: Jury's out. (I hope you win though)

”marriage is sacred!”
Who said it was ok for Brittany to be married for 36 hours? I can't remember ANYBODY supporting her. I didn't even hear the age old, papparazzi are the devil in this case.

status: Booyaka booyaka 909!

“but if we allow gay marriage, it will lead to polygamy!”
By accepting one form of formerly forbidden marriage it will natrually open the doors to others. Just like Roe vs. Wade has been used to protect gay sex.

status: Alive and Kicking.

Disemboweld is such a strong word. I agree whole heartedly with your sentiment. My personal solution that hell I wish the Vattican would do is simply respect the separation of Church and State. I would do it like this: We the Church believe that any two persons living together, be they man and wife, father and son, mother and son, man and man, woman and woman or even two friends living together should get idential legal and financial breaks from the government. They are experiencing the same hardships regardless of their relationship. We however still maintain that God only recognizes unions between a man and a woman. Problem solved, they even got to save face.
desertsienna said on Sep 01, 2006....
As far as Britney goes, that is her own personal concern. The state has no business stepping and creating unnecessary legal boundaries to marriage. It was not so long ago that segregation existed in the United States, which is by legend the 'freeest country in the world.' If it is a free country, let women decide what to do with their own bodies and let gays get married if they want to. Nobody stopped Hugh Hefner from marrying a woman who was thirty-five years younger than him.

I am tired of social conservatism. The church and mosque or synagogue or whatever should be separated from the state. It says so in the Declaration of Independence. As for Christian definitions of marriage, a church can elect to allow for gays to have weddings there or not. They can have a civil ceremony instead if so desired.

We have no business restricting marriage rights arbitrarily. How can a union between two willing, consensual adults of sound mind by wrong? Should we stop people from marrying outside their race, class or faith as well? Should one only be allowed to marry someone one's own age? Should one ban people from marrying someone with a disability, mental illness or any significant health problems? We have no right to do this.
silverwhisper said on Sep 01, 2006....
sean, thank you for commenting at such length. that took some time, i imagine. i will reply at length later in the day but i can't just now.

ed
InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....
God is love. God is acceptance. Why would God only recognize a union between a man and a woman when unions between same sex couples (though not sanctioned by law or the church) do indeed exist?

Please also see my point about anti-miscegenation statutes. The mixing of races was originally thought to be forbidden, morally wrong, and against God. Hmm... that no longer seems to be true. Is it possible that the government and the church may be getting this one wrong, as well?

Please inform me how Roe v. Wade has had any impact on gay sex. I am dying to know. In fact, Roe v. Wade was precendental on legalizing (or rather decriminalizing) abortion, but has since been overturned by Planned Parenthood v. Casey as far as the state of the law on abortion is concerned.

As a gay parent, it is absurd that you say that gays should not be permitted to be parents. My wife had children (through natural insemination) and they are doing great. We do a better job raising our kids than many hetero couples I know (or know of).

I live in the US, not Vatican City, so looking to the Vatican for any insight on this matter is irrelevant. There is separation of church and state, at least until the Republicans get into office and muck things up. The Pope recently made a statement that we work too hard; everyone should take more vacation. Does this mean that our government will enact a new law or even amend the Constitution to make it so? Very doubtful.

Finally, I'd like to state that sexual preference is unique to each individual. To me, hetero sex is unnatural. I don't like it. Some people have toe fetishes; I hate feet. It doesn't mean that the government or the church should have any input into what I do sexually. As long as I am not hurting anyone, why can't I be given the benefit of intestacy laws with my partner? Actually, by not being legally married, my wife and I pay less taxes because we both file as single and she get to be "head of household."

I don't want to go into a Catholic church to get married, I just want to be treated like an equal human. Who I choose to have sex with is my own business, and I don't force it on anyone. I know that my wife and I are married in the eyes of God; no one can take that belief from me... not even ignorant assholes. Sorry.
Bordy said on Sep 01, 2006....
As far as the separation of church and state goes, I am sure all of you are aware now (or at least were taught some time) that what that aimed to accomplish was to keep the church from making governmental decisions, as it had in England (ie Henry VII).

Now, the vatican and the major religious groups of the world cannot step in to make these decisions for us... but that does NOT mean that those who are in power cannot be influenced by their individual religious beliefs.

Just because a view is shared both by a politician and a church does not make it a "Separation of Church and State" issue.
InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....
Bordy: religious doctrine can never be the basis for the enactment of any law. When a politician makes a decision based on his influence from the church, he is violating the Constitution. Elected officials in this country are meant to be objective arbiters of the public view. Okay, I admit that is an idealistic view of politicians... but, they cannot shrug their shoulders and say, "this isn't a church decision because I am a politician... even if I am influenced by the church." That defeats the point of separation of church and state. Politicians should turn off their personal influences and fulfill their role in objectivity.

It seems that politicians in this country cannot come up with a good reason why gay marriage should be prohibited, so they either say something asinine (it will lead to polygamy or beastiality) or they say, "well, it has always been recognized as a union between man and woman, so therefore it should remain that way... (i.e., 'cause I said so)." Frankly, I don't find the arguments compelling.

If someone could really convince me why gay marriage should be prohibited, I'd be open to hearing about it. It just appears, however, that everyone opposed to gay marriage has rationality that is clouded by ignorance and fear.

What is the worst possible outcome if gays can marry? Are heterosexuals afraid that gay weddings will simply be too fabulous and they will be unable to compete? (And not to strike fear in hearts of all you bible thumpers out there, but lots of gay people get married, even if we don't have a piece of paper saying so). Nothing in my life would change if gay marriage was legalized; I'd just have another piece of paper to file in my office. I've already contractually arranged for similar treatment of my wife and myself that is afforded to married hetero couples. Granted, to gain that equality required a bit more leg work on my part, but it was good practice for a budding attorney.
Bordy said on Sep 01, 2006....
That is categorically untrue IPJ. Our beliefs and our personal doctrines influence every facet of what we do, it is a human trait. They cannot be asked to separate themselves from their beliefs entirely (after all, they ran on certain platforms, based on their beliefs, and that is why they were elected was it not?)

The church has nothing to do with their decisions, rather they themselves are the basis for what they choose to do. Whether or not the church had anything to do with how they were raised, what they believe, etc, is irrelevant. The Separation of Church and State calls for a separation from the ruling bodies of churches and the government. Not that our political leaders cannot be religious.
secretlife said on Sep 01, 2006....
SW: Just wanted to say this is a great post.

You all are so smart that I don't have much to add and will just enjoy the banter.

SeanReonaud you gave me such a headache last nite over the abortion post! But you are very intelligent and I was quite impressed with your response and your arguments.

Even though I know you agree with SW overall.

InterplanetJanet- wow - great comments; I'm really in awe of your ability to express yourself such that I could literally feel you.

I have gay friends-
I know if they were given a choice, they'd not choose a life so difficult. Being gay is the hard way.

I hope I live to see the day when gays are given equal rights under the laws of this country.
InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....
Being religious and promulgating laws based on religious beliefs are different, Bordy. Elected politicians represent all of the citizens, not just the ones that share their religious viewpoint. It is their job to act objectively.

The laws that are passed in this country have to conform to certain requirements, and being free of religious doctrine is one such requirement. JFK was a Catholic, but he didn't try to push his religion on the citizens of this country. Stating that something should be prohibited because it is against God and [whatever] religion is not a valid reason to enact a law.

Like I said above, give me a compelling reason why gays should be prohibited from the union of marriage and I will consider it. What effect on public policy would allowing such action have? After all, public policy reasons are the primary impetus for the enactment of laws; how will married gays hurt society?
Bordy said on Sep 01, 2006....
I think you're missing my point IPJ ;)

I never said I was against gay marriage. I could care less, really. I have gay friends, in fact the majority of the group of kids I grew up with are gay.

I just have a certain pet peeve against the misuse of the idea of the Separation of Church and State.
Indiefilm said on Sep 01, 2006....
IPJ: "religious doctrine can never be the basis for the enactment of any law. When a politician makes a decision based on his influence from the church, he is violating the Constitution."

I seem to remember reading somewhere that, 'thalt shalt not kill'.... hmmmm.... oh yes, it's a beleif found in most religions. its a pity that its not actually practiced as such,though...

Never is a strong term, and not particualarly accurate in this case. Religous beliefs do shape politics just as surely as scientific (and sometimes not so scientific) beliefs shape politics.

I don't personally believe in gay marrages. I find the idea of having sexual relations with another man disgusting, and it goes against my personal tastes. Which is why I will never sleep with or marry another guy.

Consiquently its the same reason I don't eat tomatoes, their nasty! I mean how can you people eat such a nasty tasting fruit! blech! But hey, if you want to put one of those things tomatoes that is in your mouth, more power too you, as long as you don't attempt to force your belief tomatoes are good on me, i won't force my belief their nasty on you.

And yes, I have several friends who are gay, and no, I honestly don't have a problem with that, or with the idea of them getting married if they so choose.

IPJ: "If someone could really convince me why gay marriage should be prohibited"..."What is the worst possible outcome if gays can marry? Are heterosexuals afraid that gay weddings will simply be too fabulous and they will be unable to compete?"

LOL!!!

You might be on to something with that!
madstorm said on Sep 01, 2006....
Wow!! Indiefilm has sure learnt to use the formatting options!!

personally... I've NEVER met anyone who's married AND happy... maybe they're happy for awhile but then... well, it all goes to shit. This debate shouldn't be about gay marriage but about what's the difference between gay sex and heterosexual sex? If a lesbian closes her eyes while having her pussy licked, would she know if it's a man or a woman? WHAT THE HELL IS THE DIFFERENCE?!?!? If a man closes his eyes during sex, how does he know if his cocks in someones ass or in a pussy?!?!? WHAT THE HELL IS THE DIFFERENCE?!?!?!

The REAL question is... why, gay men OR women, do you have a problem with the opposite sex?!?
InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....
SL:
Thanks. This is one topic about which I am very passionate. I live with the weight of being gay every day, and while I think that coming out was the best decision I ever made, it has new implications daily.

Bordy:
I know you didn't weigh in on gay marriage, but I am trying to keep my comments on point. Plus, I am waiting with baited breath for Sean to reply; I hope it is as eloqent as his first response (BooYahhhhh).

But I'm not misusing the idea, Bordy. Yes, I am taking an idealistic and perhaps naïve approach to the concept (I know religious beliefs do influence policy; it’s the nature of the beast); but, I am not misusing the term. "Because God says so" is never a reason for passing a law; it cannot be, based on Article VI our Constitution (applied to the states through the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments). If a politician believes in certain policy based on his religious beliefs (and those beliefs are the only foundation for the policy), then he has lost the objectivity necessary to be a neutral policy maker.

I'm not saying that politicians aren't entitled to religious beliefs (that too is protected by the Constitution), it is just that their beliefs cannot be the basis of their decisions made as politicians. If the tables turned and politicians in this country were predominantly Muslim, or Jewish, or Pagan, and the laws started to mirror the doctrine of those religions, I am sure the Christians would have something to say about it.

Let's create a hypothetical and say the country becomes heavily pagan. Most politicians are pagans; it is the most common religion in the country. The politicians have certain beliefs, which are grounded in their religious doctrine. They worship nature, and believe that any harm to the environment violates their religion and is a sin against their god. They decide to enact a law making any form of environment-harming pollution illegal. Thousands of businesses are forced to shut down; people must ride bikes to work. "Whoa!" you say, "you can't pass that law, Mr. Politician, you are commingling your religious beliefs with public policy. That ain't right." You're exactly right; that ain't right. This is why our Founding Fathers created the Establishment Clause in the Constitution: to prevent religiously-driven politicians from forcing dogma on the nation as a whole.

Indie:
Yes, religious beliefs do shape the law and policy; however, there must always be a public policy reason behind a law enacted. I find no compelling argument (which would satisfy strict scrutiny analysis) that points to the prohibition of gay marriage as anything other than religious dogma. Surely, you can see the public policy argument behind making it illegal to kill another… right? Other than fear of fabulous weddings, I don’t see harm in gay marriage.

I don’t personally believe in abortion, but I also don’t think our government should tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. I’d never have an abortion, but it is not the place of the government to tell me I may not. Science, religion, and politics all go hand-in-hand; personally, I think that is what makes our society such a dynamic one. That being said, when policy has foundation in only religion, it cannot be forced upon the entire nation. I am not a Christian, but the proposed ban on gay marriage makes me subscribe to dogma rooted in Christianity. My God thinks that gay marriage is perfectly acceptable.

Madstorm:
I do not have a problem with the opposite sex. I do not enjoy sex with men, as I imagine you don’t either. The issue of gay marriage is not some much rooted in the fact that gays want to be married, but that gays want to be treated equally. It could be any issue discriminating against gays; it just so happens that this country has fixated on the idea of gay marriage.
InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....
...
FaithInMind said on Sep 01, 2006....
Your comment:
I like Silverwhisper's argument that Government should not be in the business of dictating which consenting adults can marry. It appeals to me as a conservative and I agree with that.

I take issue with this so-called separation of church and state stuff, though. It's conveniently bandied about when it supports pet issues such as abortion and gay marriage, but thrown out the door when it concerns which health services churches may or may not support regarding their employees.

Churches and religious organizations are regulated by Government in aspects of zoning, taxation, labor, building codes, insurance, cases of eminent domain and so on. Where's the "separation"? The truth is there is none when there's a compelling Government interest! All of the regulations mentioned above may indeed protect religious organizations, but they are nonetheless hardly examples of "separation".

It's patently hypocritical to aruge that the religious beliefs of constituents should not influence politicians, and then turn around and regulate church activity based on the political whims of Federal, State and Local regulators. Socially conservative religious folks are taxpayers too. Their views deserve to be represented every bit as much as everyone else's. As one poster said, politicians are supposed to represent everyone - including socially conservative religious folks.

And to be completely accurate, the actual phrase "separation of church and state" is NOWHERE in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, or any other legal document the Founders created. It's a phrase quoted from a letter one of the Founders wrote to a group of Baptists that was dredged up by the Supreme Court many years ago.

The phrase is actually the legacy of a virulently anti-Catholic Supreme Court Justice who used this phrase to justify denying publicly-funded busing to a group of Catholic school kids. Now this phrase is being used in a long-term, large-scale campaign to disenfranchise religious taxpaying voters.

It's amazing how many folks harp on a concept that isn't even in the Constitution and preach that as legal Gospel.
SeanRenaud said on Sep 01, 2006....
I apologize for any headaches I may have caused with my responses over abortion. I don't mean to cause physical pain.

Since the primary part of this discussion has twisted towards religion I guess that is what I should be handling. First I'm going to start by throwing the whole separation of church and state which is more of a tradition, than a law. The First Amemdment reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No laws can be made telling you what to worship, or how to worship. Even though it has been construed to mean that there is no religion in school (which I'm thankful for) it doesn't say that. Likewise it doesn't say that you can't make laws based on a religion, assuming that they don't directly conflict with another religion and the free practice of it.

As for what Bordy said what religion you belong to does and should guide your decisions in life. It is who you are. Take abortion, if you believe with all your heart that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder, shouldn't you take the same measures to protect the unborn child as you would any other person in danger of being murdered? If you believe that gay marriage is an affront against God AND you love your neighbor, and love your enemie like you love yourself shouldn't you try to stop them from being damned away from God's love? I know I try to stop those I care about from doing things that I know to be harmful. Remember heaven and hell are as real to some people as concrete and trees are to us.
InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....
You are forgetting, FIM, that our country uses the common law to determine and interpret black letter law. That is, through case law our statutes grow and evolve as the times dictate. The Founding Fathers knew that times would change and therefore set up a system of goverment that is dynamic.

So yes, you are right, there is no specific mention in the Establishment Clause of the Constitution (or anywhere for that matter) of "separation of church and state;" however, the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." exists. Looking to the letter Jefferson wrote as a Danbury Baptist for some legislative intent (which is the proper way to interpret the meaning of statutes), he intended that phrase to mean building a wall separating church and state.

The virulent SC justice, hating on the Catholics, actually set good legal precedent. Catholic schools are tax exempt and can teach whatever they want. They can charge money to students who matriculate. Busing is publicly-funded and should not be extended to Catholic schools, unless they want to pay for the service.

I have no problem with religious conservatives being represented in government. But at the same time, there are many interests out there and those of religious conservatives must be integrated in law with those of others. I don't think you'd like the government spending money providing preferential services to pagan "churches," because their doctrine is at odds with Catholicism, and such action would give the appearance of favoritism of that particular religion (the government is supposed to be secular).

Churches and religious organizations are regulated by Government in aspects of zoning, taxation, labor, building codes, insurance, cases of eminent domain and so on. Where's the "separation"? The truth is there is none when there's a compelling Government interest! All of the regulations mentioned above may indeed protect religious organizations, but they are nonetheless hardly examples of "separation".

If the government didn't treat churches equally by regulating them, then there would be an issue with a lack of separation because they'd be favoring the interests of a religious organization over the law that applies to everyone. Those regulations not only protect religious organizations, but all non-profit organizations; that's what keeps it fair.

[sorry to get so off topic, ed]
silverwhisper said on Sep 01, 2006....
i drafted this on the train and am addressing no other arguments than what was presented in sean's post.

sean: first, i’d like to say that i appreciate your counter arguments and the care you take to express them in a way that facilitates continued discussion. thank you.

and now, to address your comments:

gayness is largely unnatural. just because you can find examples of it in nature doesn't mean much. dolphins want to have sex with human females, emus also. dogs hump anything that moves, and a lot of stuff that doesn't. whoopty do. the part about god is an entirely different issue, as natural and written by god are different. but to tackle that one jesus may have overturned the old laws but god making adam and eve would still stand logically speaking. if you go further and take into acount that the purpose of sex in some people's mind is procreation not recreation and you're nailed on two counts.

unnatural as in contrary to nature: sexual activity that does not produce offspring still occurs. therefore, it is not contrary to nature. it really is that simple, sean. as far as christian perspectives re: homosexuality, so god created adam and eve. hetero relationships represents the majority of human romantic/sexual relationships. and again, the levitican prohibitions against “spilling seed” are null and void from a christian perspective, as previously stated (and presumably accepted, as you did not object). the procreation-only view is propounded only by people insufficiently familiar with their theology, IMX. i’ve said it before and i’ll say it again: if there’s a god, then the existence of orgasms is proof that he/she/it loves us and wants us to be happy. :>

status: still busted

then explain the controversy over abortion, or the laws passed in alabama this year. explain how inteligent design and creationism are being taught. explain why in god we trust is on our money and in our pledge.

there is no clear scriptural reference available to christians re: the impropriety of abortion. you’re familiar w/ abortion discussions and you know this. if you think i’m in error, show me some scriptural evidence to the contrary. i always use this site for this purpose. i’ve never yet found any in any of the discussions i’ve had on the matter in the past however long. as for the stupidity in alabama or the myth of ID: AFAICT, that’s people trying to make religion the basis for law.

but even beyond that: the consumption of alcohol is considered sinful according to certain sects of christianity, such as the southern baptists, among other denominations. yet the sale of alcohol is legal. it may be restricted in some areas due to blue laws. if religion truly were the basis for law, the legality would not exist. similarly, i have a legal right, if i so desire, to desecrate a cross or crucifix, as part of my freedom of expression (see also: mapplethorpe, robert). if i do so i’m sure others will exercise their own freedom of expression to tell me just what they think of such an action, but there you have it. were religion truly the basis for law, that freedom wouldn’t exist and we’d still be under prohibition. the roman catholic church did the entire world a massive favor by eschewing temporal power.

status: still busted

yes really. we've defined as such in the united states for quite sometime. how it was done in ancient egypt, colonial america or even modern day italy can serve only as an example, not as a reason why we should do it that way.

the appeal to tradition argument is always a weak one IMX but in this instance spectacularly so. you’re familiar, i trust, w/ mormonism? up until the mid-19th century, polygamy—a rather well-known aspect of that faith—was made illegal in the US expressly because of the mormons. marriage has meant many things through human history. the appeal to tradition arbitrarily selects one point, in spite of the existence of contrary, prior examples and de facto sticks its fingers in its ears screaming “nyeah, nyeah, nyeah! i can’t hear you!”

status: still busted

many people believe that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt where as the other two groups you mentioned should.

and such people are, quite simply, wrong. there is no valid reason to believe that gays should not be parents. given that there is no objective data suggesting that sexual identity is a conscious choice, why restrict the pool of possible adoptive parents, a list which by all reports is nowhere near satisfying the need? if it’s a fear that the children will be gay, that’s simply not supported by the science. if it’s that gays are somehow unfit to be parents, i’d love to see a study by an impartial group (i.e., not focus on the family/family research council) that actually propounds that view.

status: still busted

who said it was ok for britney to be married for 36 hours? i can't remember anybody supporting her. i didn't even hear the age old, papparazzi are the devil in this case.

if marriage really were so sacred, then where precisely was the hue and outcry from dr. james dobson, of focus on the family/family research council? where was the outcry from any of the televangelists? where was the outcry from any religious institution at all? no, they all remained as silent as the grave. all of them. if the sanctity of marriage meant so much to them, that would have been the only possible response, not this silence that exposes them as, well, hypocrites.

status: still busted

by accepting one form of formerly forbidden marriage it will naturally open the doors to others. just like roe vs. wade has been used to protect gay sex.

you’re arguing slippery slope here sean, a classic logical fallacy, aren’t you? and how in the world does roe v. wade have any impact whatsoever on gay sex? gay sex by definition cannot be impacted by roe v. wade. although i’ll admit, i’m awfully curious to understand the connection.

status: still busted

i would do it like this: we the church believe that any two persons living together, be they man and wife, father and son, mother and son, man and man, woman and woman or even two friends living together should get identical legal and financial breaks from the government. they are experiencing the same hardships regardless of their relationship. we however still maintain that god only recognizes unions between a man and a woman. problem solved, they even got to save face.

i appreciate that this is a matter on which you’ve obviously spent no small amount of time considering and i’m sure you’ve done a lot of it on the AH. i also appreciate that you are at least philosophically in agreement w/ the view, if not the arguments i’ve put forward. i always relish an opportunity to sharpen my skills: you have my gratitude.

honestly, i think that you’re asking an awful lot of the RC church. it would be a quantum retreat from their previous positions, esp under benedict. maybe there was some hope for such an idea under john paul 2, who i think became progressively more liberal during his papacy, but his successor is clearly very much his own pontiff, it would seem

thank you, sean. i haven’t had this much fun w/ an online discussion in a long, long time. had this been a face to face conversation, it would have been my pleasure to get us fresh drinks from the bar. :>

ed
SeanRenaud said on Sep 01, 2006....
Ooo, I'm lovin this, all to rarely to I find worthy opponents.

Right back atcha:
Encase your curious about what the Bible says on Gay sex, and on spilling your seed since you brought it up. A lot of arguing with Christians has given me a pretty good knowledge of the Bible.

Just so where on the same page though by your argument, occurs in nature/naturally=natural. The Tigons and Ligers are natural even though they mostly only occur under controlled circumstances, and you could argue that it doesn't happen in nature due to geographical distances. Likewise you would argue that interspecies erotica, at the very least dolphin/human, emu/human and dog/human are all natural as they can occur in nature assuming certain circumstances?

Genisis
38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.
Leviticus
18:22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

You could also say that this doesn't cover lesbians. Which is good, I should bring that to the attention of the church.

You can make the argument however that the teachings of Jesus erase this but since I'm having a hard time finding that passage I'll call it a neutral point for now.

status: Backed by scripture.

yes really. we've defined as such in the united states for quite sometime. how it was done in ancient egypt, colonial america or even modern day italy can serve only as an example, not as a reason why we should do it that way.

Maybe most people do when arguing tradition. I only point out recent tradition/conditions. Like I hate when people argue that well we funded Saddam. We funded against the USSR. When the spread of communism ceased to be an issue, and he bit us the rules, and conditions changed. And that was ten years ago. I'm merely saying that I don't care what anybody else is, has or will do. Those can only be used as examples to show working (or nonworking) models. Not reasons why we should do it.

status: Tradition doesn't matter.

many people believe that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt where as the other two groups you mentioned should.
First not that I'm arguing, but can you produce numbers as to how many children need adoption vs how many are adopted? Second what I said is that many people FEEL. What people feel and what facts and science support aren't always (or even often) related. My point had nothing to do with the quality of care that homosexuals are capable of producing but rather the prejudices that they face.

status: Immortal thanks to ignorance.

If silence=consent then you're right. Somethings just aren't important enough to get their panties in a bunch. They jump on gays, they jump on polygamists. Still I see your point, but the church seems to be so against Hollywood and the media that Brittany slutting around is just a drop in the bucket. They probably just filed it away under things they'll bitch about later.

status: On life support.

by accepting one form of formerly forbidden marriage it will naturally open the doors to others. just like roe vs. wade has been used to protect gay sex.

I'd have to go look it up directly, as I recall the court case that defended a gay's rights to have sex. As I'm sure you are familar with sodomy (which despite popular opinion doesn't refer expressly to anal, but rather to oral AND anal) was illegal in most states. In some it still is but is rarely prosecuted. If I recall properly they cited Roe vs. Wade as the precedent of privacy in the bed room, and in sexual relations.

I don't think that slippery slope logic is faulty. I think in some ways it is unwarranted but I can easily see polygamy being opened up by gay marriage. I feel that both of them should be allowed. In this case slippery slope works in my favor. Just like I think blacks getting the right to vote lead to women getting the right, again slippery slope can do good things as well.

status: Still won't die.

Drinks are on me. Its rare that I get to discuss something at length without name calling and fingerpointing, particularly since I'm rather adamant about my beliefs. Though I hav a hard time destroying parts of your argument becuase I largely agree with you, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.
Bordy said on Sep 01, 2006....
mainly cause you are the devil, devil.

ooh, bad joke. At least SR will get it.
SeanRenaud said on Sep 01, 2006....
Yeah I am. But I'm proud to be the Devil, canine or otherwise.

Also to Silver. They tried to outlaw alcohol, the cost in lives was too high.
silverwhisper said on Sep 02, 2006....
sean:

cool. :>

bible: sorry, but leviticus is part of the law and goes away, remember? and i'm somewhat familiar w/ scripture myself. :> the passage you quoted from genesis is a prohibition against masturbation, not against homosexuality. i know the passages, sean. trust me, what you're looking for doesn't exist in the jewish bible. you need the pauline epistles for this part of the conversation. believe me.

appeal to tradition: yes, they do, which is why i think the apppeal to traditition has all the argumentive force of toilet paper. :>

adoption: figures are available for number of prospective adoptees. i don't believe figures are available re: potential adoptive parents but i do know that every single time i see the matter crop up in the news, the social services staff always mention that there aren't enough adoptive parents. and remember, i mentioned this in the first place only in response to your asking for evidence that religion isn't the basis for law. :>

britney: yes, that's precisely it, silence=consent. that's a much more efficient phrasing.

slippery slopes: er...i don't think you're employing an accurate definition of this, b/c it wasn't a slippery slope that caused voting rights for blacks to lead to voting rights for women. a slippery slope assumes incorrectly an inevitability b/n each set of events then extends it to the hypothetical. am i missing something?

bordy: separation of church and state resulted from a supreme court decision and is the basis of well over a century of caselaw. :>

faithinmind: if religious organizations accept government money, that money comes w/ strings att'd, just like any government money. when religious organizations are exempt from taxes, well, that too has a price. what specifically were you talking about?

madstorm: your question requires a premise i cannot accept, that there's something wrong w/ having sex w/ people of the same sex sex.

ed
Bordy said on Sep 02, 2006....
I did not argue the realty of the "Separation of church and state" concept, I Am saying people incorrectly misuse it all the damn time.
silverwhisper said on Sep 02, 2006....
but nobody in this discussion is. :>

ed
Bordy said on Sep 02, 2006....
I believe they were. Sorry to quote an already argued point IPJ, but

I live in the US, not Vatican City, so looking to the Vatican for any insight on this matter is irrelevant. There is separation of church and state, at least until the Republicans get into office and muck things up. The Pope recently made a statement that we work too hard; everyone should take more vacation. Does this mean that our government will enact a new law or even amend the Constitution to make it so? Very doubtful.
Amalia said on Sep 02, 2006....
I am very little familiar with the subject, and totally unqualified to talk about it.

But I have a wonder: why do gay people use the words 'husband'/'wife' when they refer to their partners? Weren't the words 'husband' and 'wife' made up in order to describe a definite couple relationship man-woman engaged in a marital relation? Now that gay people need to define somehow their specific kind of 'marital' relation, don't they need to make up specific words defining their specific civil status? It's a silly question, and the words they use do not really matter. Just wondering.
Bordy said on Sep 02, 2006....
A solid point I never thought about... but wouldn't that further increase the divide that seems to be present here? And further label them as different? Think we're going for equality.

Wow, that sounds snotty. I'm sorry, I really didn't mean it to.

IPJ, ed, any thoughts? Or am I entirely off.
SeanRenaud said on Sep 02, 2006....
I suppose technically slippery slope means that A inevitably leads to B, instead of B is very likely to follow A. Course by that definition slippery slope never applies to humans because there is always an X factor.

Where does Jesus actualy tell people to ignore the old rules. The closest I'm finding is the verses where he's quite clear that if you have money you ain't gettin in.

And I know the Genesis quote was about masturbating, you'd mentioned something about spilling seed so I figured I would go and troll that up as a side issue.
Chimaera said on Sep 02, 2006....
The term "slippery slope" specifically refers to a particular logical fallacy, in which a set of events are imputed to be contingently related such that the first event inevitable leads to the last, without providing any evidence or support for that contingent relationship. Pragmatically and colloquially, the term "slippery slope" seems to have garnered some bizarre sort of credibility, with people gleefully labelling their arguments as slippery slopes, not realizing what they are saying. People also sometimes try to claim that slippery slope arguments are sometimes valid, which is a pretty pig-stupid position, given that the term definitionally refers to a fallacy (and is, hence, necessarily invalid). "Slippery slope" doesn't refer to a class of aqrguments relying on a contingent chain (like the Hypothetical Syllogism in propositional calculus), but specifically to an unsupported assertion that handwaves at contingency.

Yes, philosophical malapropism is one of my hot-buttons...
Rest assurred, the pedantic one now returns to quiescent slumber...
silverwhisper said on Sep 02, 2006....
bordy: that's the wrong question. the question is really more one of whether straights have problems w/ members of the same sex.

sean: when christ says that he fulfills the law, he's saying that the rest of the law no longer applies. there's no need for christians to be circumcised, for example: the only reason we do that in the US is the sad legacy of kellogg and his anti-masturbation nonsense.

chimaera: nice to see you again. :>

ed
SeanRenaud said on Sep 02, 2006....
Thats around when he dies yes? Once again I'm asking because so much is taken out of context.
scalywag said on Sep 02, 2006....
Interesting discussion. My vote is that gay marriage is fine.

(Man I'm glad I didn't post earlier and say something stupid.)
silverwhisper said on Sep 02, 2006....
sean: i'm sorry, i'm not sure i'm following your meaning: ?

ed
silverwhisper said on Sep 03, 2006....
scaly: hey, i never let that stop me... :>

ed
Chimaera said on Sep 03, 2006....
Actually, silver, Jewish women have a vastly lower rate of cervical cancer than gentile women; circumcision may have something to do with that...
silverwhisper said on Sep 03, 2006....
chimaera: i'm sensing a correlation <> causation qualifier in the offing. and it's not like when that trend become the norm in the US (is it true where you are as well?) that was the reason for it. :>

ed
Chimaera said on Sep 03, 2006....
It's been the rationale behind every non-Jewish circumsicion I've been made privy to... And please, dude... who are you talking to? When have you ever known me to confuse correlation with causation? While I haven't made an in-depth study of the matter, I assure you that the medical professionals that I've discussed the matter with tend to concur. The balance of informed opinion on the matter that I've been exposed to supports the notion.
silverwhisper said on Sep 03, 2006....
chimaera: i'm familiar w/ the issue. i'm not at all convinced that such information controls adequately for proper hygienic practice.

ed
Dazlak said on Sep 03, 2006....
Why are you quoting the bible?

If we use the bible as a guide to live our lives then woman should not speak in public, when a woman is having a period then she should not to to Church, I can have slaves, and we could stone children to death who do not behave.

Jesus taught us many things and we should take his message to the heart.. but to live by the bible.. that is just total bull...

Should gays be allowed to marry? Marriage as FD said is a contract between to persons that in the eyes of the law are a single entity. They are one. If they live in a open relationship, or are gays or do not have sex.. should not matter. They just want a contract that says what is mine is his also.

And should gays be married in a church? I think that is something that the church should discuss and decide for the themselves. A priest should decide if he should marry gays or not.
Anselm said on Sep 03, 2006....
"but if we allow gay marriage, it will lead to polygamy!"
This isn't ad hominem. It is a slippery slope argument. And a red herring.
If there's a good reason against polygamy that applies to same-sex marriage, why hasn't it been applied to same-sex marriage? And if the reason doesn't apply to same-sex marriage, then allowing same-sex marriage would have no effect on it.
InterplanetJanet said on Sep 04, 2006....
With all this, I still have not heard a compelling argument against legalizing gay marriage...

The Bible rhetoric is merely taking the conversation off topic.
SeanRenaud said on Sep 04, 2006....
Honestly law is largely based on the supposedly faulty "Slippery Slope" mechanic. That is what LEGAL PRECEDENT is. We allow one thing and because of that a court of law says that we'll allow something else. Course I'm all for polygamy.

@Silver, since you weren't giving me a Bible verse to look at for when Jesus said he completes the law I was trying to narrow my search somewhat.

@IPJ, not the Bible folks are really the only people strongly against gay marriage. Hense they are the ones who need to be convinced, they don't work (primarily) on common sense of scientific discovery, or polls or any other measureable amount of data. They have this book though. . .
Chimaera said on Sep 04, 2006....
There is nothing 'supposed' about it... the term slippery slope specifically denotes a fallacious pattern of reasoning. And legal precedent is by no means necessarily slippery slope in nature; it involves argumentation as to why the reasoning and decision in one case should apply to some novel case. That's not a slippery slope -- that involves principled argumentation to establish the relevance of one case to another, which kind of undermines the definition of a slippery slope.
desertsienna said on Sep 04, 2006....
Why we are on circumcision is beyond me, but there are several studies which suggest that rates of penile cancer and cervical cancer are lower amongst groups that have been circumsized:

Modern proponents suggest that diseases result from the buildup of smegma, a substance secreted under the foreskin. Also cited is evidence that circumcised populations (especially Jews) display low rates of penile and cervical cancer. Critics reject the validity of these claims, arguing that such disorders are more likely caused by poor hygiene and by contact with multiple sex partners.

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
silverwhisper said on Sep 04, 2006....
anselm: it is ad hominem in that people tend to oppose polygamy.

sean: what chimaera said. :>

desertsienna: that issue is easily addressed through proper hygiene.

ed
SeanRenaud said on Sep 04, 2006....
Fine whatever. It doesn't really matter if it is a fallacy as long as people believe it. We are talking politics and public opinion trumps science and logic every time.

What is the actual proper term for saying that if one thing occurs, say uh increasing education in our schools, that the literacy rate will increase? Or that if you don't excercise that you will lose muscle mass and gain fat?

Or that when you allow free thought all kinds of "Bible" Rhetoric will hold less sway over people.

Or as is applicable to this case that if you allow one kind of non-traditional marriage to be accepted that it is more likely that people will vote to allow other non traditional forms of marriage?

Hell how exactly is Legal Precedent not opening the door for other similar cases to receive similar ruling? I'm not saying that situation A inevitably leads to B, I'm saying logically it seems likely and I'd be curious what the proper term is so we can stop battling over semantics.
silverwhisper said on Sep 04, 2006....
sean, a logical fallacy by definition is not a sound argument.

ed
Anselm said on Sep 04, 2006....
"anselm: it is ad hominem in that people tend to oppose polygamy."

Ad hominem is attacking a person rather than the position. The polygamy argument is not about the arguers.
silverwhisper said on Sep 04, 2006....
hm. i think it is, for the reason previously stated.

no wait: you're right. it's a guilt by association argument. beg your pardon, sir.

ed
Chimaera said on Sep 04, 2006....
You're thinking of a Hypothetical Syllogism, an argument in the form of:

P implies Q
Q implies R

Therefore,

P implies R

That is a valid argument. The problem comes when one is unable to establish those contingent implications. Your example of legal precedent as a slippery slope is a misanalogy, because the process by which a precedent is applied to a given case is one of argument and consideration, i.e.: evaluating and possible establishing the implication. In a slippery slope, that relationship is not established in any principled manner.

Now, if you're arguing that allowing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy, that IS a slippery slope unless and until you can establish how that will happen. Handwaving at the phenomenon of legal precedent is insufficient; you'll have to provide some kind of evidence or rigourous argumentation to support that notion. As it stands, it's just a fallacious argument based upon unproven, poor inference. Perhaps you're arguing that the frame of mind implied by gay marriage is also one that will be tolerant of polygamy? I don't agree, but I think that's closer to what I think you're trying to say. Personally, there is nothing really relevantly in common between polygamy and gay marriage other than their current 'marginal' status. The slippery slope arguments that link them seek to exploit the seemingly ubiquitous 'common-sense' notion that polygamy is clearly and unambiguously wrong and contaminate the notion of gay marriage with it. I've seen people trying to do the same using bestiality in place of polygamy as well, and even pederasty. It's poor argumentation, tying in cheap and lurid appeals to emotion and slippery slopes.
SeanRenaud said on Sep 04, 2006....
Thank you for telling me the proper term so we could move forward. Granted not all people are like me, but I support both gay marriage and polygamy despite being neither (not that I could complain about having 8 wives). I would venture that people who are tolerant of other lifestyles that are not harmful to the us, just like you being gay doesn't hurt me, you having 8 wives (assuming they are there willingly) doesn't hurt me.

One thing might not lead to another, I personally hope that they do. They might not. The only thing that connects the two is that they are non-standard marriage practices. I admit that.
Chimaera said on Sep 04, 2006....
It occurs to me that you may not be positing a chain of contingent events, but rather the single contingency of the legalization of gay marriage leading directly to the legalization of polygamy... Generally, the slippery slope concept, as applied to this issue in particular, is used to insinuate the erosion of moral values in baby-steps; that one little compromise leads to another and then another and so on, until we are eventually mired in a thoroughly immoral society.

Even so, that single contingency has yet to be established, so the burden of proof for that argument remains unmet.
Chimaera said on Sep 04, 2006....
Ah, I see now... you're not making an assertion of a causal link, but rather hoping for one... gotcha. For what it's worth, I basically agree with you. While I'm not as sanguine about the issue of polygamy as you are (I think it's a little more complex than just consenting adults), I'm also of the frame of mind that what agreeable, responsible folks do amongst themselves and to themselves and each other, is largely not my business, nor the government's.
SeanRenaud said on Sep 04, 2006....
I agree that generally the Slippery Slope is used as a negative idea towards immorality. I merely view the "concept" which you informed me the proper term for is hypothetical Syllagism to mean that something is the first step that can logically move to other established beliefs being taken away.

I honestly believe that had Blacks not been granted the right to vote it would have taken longer for women to gain the right than it did. I view this as a positive and I'm certain there are many other complex factors at work I firmly belief this was one of them.

Yes I am hoping that logically once people see that gays being allowed to marry didn't end the world they will realize that maybe polygamist won't end either. That it won't bring about the Armageddon.
Lysander said on Sep 05, 2006....
I think Eisentadt V Baird had more hand in the decision in Lawrence V Texas than Roe V Wade did.

Eisentadt V Baird really helped break down the walls where certain laws only protected married couples. Eisentadt V Baird said that unmarried couples had the right to possess contraception just like married couples did.
SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....
I know we got far far removed from the this question after it was dodged. But the argument was made that since homosexuality can be observed in X different kinds of animals that it is natural. I countered that dolphins, emus and canines often engage in interspecies erotica. Would this make then natural as well?
InterplanetJanet said on Sep 05, 2006....
But Sean, you are not comparing apples to apples. There are humans who engage in interspecies erotica (I like to call it beastiality), and no, that's not natural (that's why the asian bird flu is getting so out of hand... you shouldn't fuck your chicken). But two humans (regardless of gender) enjoying sexual freedom...well, that's natural to me. Likewise, if two dogs or emus or whatever (regardless of gender) want to get it on... well, it's natural.

You have yet to make a strong argument to me in opposition of gay marriage.

So far, you have cited the Bible (totally irrelevant to me vis-a-vis creating law in the US), stated that allowing gay marriage will inevitably lead to polygamy (again, we're not looking at apples and apples), and compared gay sex to beastiality. Frankly, you are insulting my intelligence.
RollingC said on Sep 05, 2006....
What I have to say is really not too provocative or intelligent for that matter....
But whatever happened to "Live and let Live"?
SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....
No I'm not. If anybody I'm insulting SilverWhisper's intelligence for suggesting that just because something occurs in nature doesn't make it natural per se.

I did cite the Bible because that is where most of the opposition lies and you didn't site where Jesus said to ignore the law. It is accepted but I would like the verse just to make sure it isn't taken out of context like so much else of the Bible.

I didn't say it will inevitably lead to it Chimaera set me straight on terminology. It will increase the likelihood.

Course if you were paying attention. I'M ALL FOR GAY MARRIAGE, POLYGAMY, I'M NOT EVEN CERTAIN HOW IT IS ANY OF MY BUSSINESS IF YOU FUCK YOUR DOG.
SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....
Stupid double post happens whenever I try to edit anything. And it doesn't let me edit to boot! Grrrr.

I'm going to assume that your bird flu comment was a joke btw. Since last I heard it hadn't even been documented in human beings or has that changed since I got bored of following the stories?

Also as for what happened to live and let live that rule is only applied when you can't figure a way that it effects you. If it effects you or one you love you should take action to fix it. Like I vote and occasionally even rally for gay marriage, it should be a right. The is a situation that effects us as a nation and we claim to be non judgemental and free. We need to prove it.
InterplanetJanet said on Sep 05, 2006....
No need to shout. You're here to play devil's advocate (that part I did read). So, make me an argument. I am here to play, aren't you?

Sorry if I misread your personality (and I guess your words).

Plus, I didn't cite shit about Jesus because I was raised to believe he's just a carpenter, ya know. Jesus' law is not the law of the US, so it's irrelevant. I'm personally not a bible-thumper.

If our laws become more liberal, they will lead to a lot of changes (and not just concerning marriage issues). It's not fair to pick just the legality of polygamy as a potential societal change that will occur if gay marriage is legalized. Maybe we'll stop wiretapping innocent people and legalize marijuana. See, gay marriage won't lead to all bad news.

I don't fuck my dog, but you are correct, my relationships are none of your business.
SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....
I am definitely here to play. Mostly to get practice in for more important issues though. You should run for an office though. No need to cite Jesus, I agree that Bible law isn't our law. That part was merely quoted because for some reason I think somebody said you can't find X in the Bible, so I did. The Bible is definitly on my list of the better you know your enemy the better you're able to strike him down.

I'm pretty much all for the legalization of anything that is only harmful to an individual and of little or no harm to those around them. I won't talk about wiretapping on this thread, that's a whole different issue that I suppose I'll have to blog. I'm of mixed feelings on it to be honest. I think Bush is a retard for how he handled it though.

No need to apologize. I'm not always as clear as I should be. Sometimes it leads me to get frustrated. My fault.
InterplanetJanet said on Sep 05, 2006....
I agree with you, Sean (I did not think I'd say that), "live and let live" is a convenient way to bury your head in the sand and take no action. Taking some action is always better than no action.

Gay marriage should be a right, but not for the reasons that everyone thinks. Gays want to be treated equally. In the quest for an overt recognition of equality, marriage has become an issue because we aren't allowed to do it. I'll call my wife my partner, if the law treats us the same as husband and wife. Semantical terminology is meaningless, it is the intent behind it that impacts me.

And yes, the bird flu comment was a joke, kind of... I still don't think you should fuck chickens (call me old fashioned).
SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....
Exactly, judge and take action.

I don't think you should fuck chickens, dogs or donkeys. I'm not willing to pass laws to stop you. It ain't my bussiness. I agree that the law shoudl treat you the same.

What reason if not the one that I think, is the one why gays should be allowed to marry.
Chimaera said on Sep 05, 2006....
If it occurs in nature, it's natural... finding interspecies sexuality in nature doesn't make homosexuality unnatural, it merely makes interspecies sexuality natural as well. Besides, it's not as if the proponents of gay marriage do so on the basis of it being natural; rather, opponents of it make specious claims of homosexuality being unnatural and Silver's point was a refutation of that. Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by natural, because you seem to be using it in a manner different than the one I'm accustomed to.
SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....
"you’ll find homosexual behavior in well over 1000 different species in nature, esp bonobo chimps, IIRC."
-Silverwhisper

I was just asking that does the fact that something occurs in nature make it natural. By the standard set by that statement interspecies erotica would be considered natural.

REally I was just backing him into a corner and seeing what he would say. It really had little to nothing to do with the subject. I just wanted somebody to say what you just said, beastiality is natural. Which wierds me out.
Chimaera said on Sep 05, 2006....
Why does it weird you out? Again, I think you're using the term 'natural' in a way that I don't understand.
SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....
Natural=normal. I understand what you are saying Chimera, but no amount of occurs in nature is going to make me think that sex with animals is natural/normal.

Does some of the shit you can get on the net not weird you out? Hell don't those damn fish from the Marianna Trench, or the Duckbilled Platypuss wierd you out despite being 100% natural?
Chimaera said on Sep 05, 2006....
No, natural most certainly does not equal normal. I'm in no way saying that beastiality is normal or good or any other form of endorsement... I'm merely acknowledging that interspecies sexual behaviour occurs in nature. Lot's of things occur in nature that are not normal or carry a negative moral value, like incest and the consumption of one's own young.

Again, the pro-gay contingent aren't advancing the natural-ness of homosexuality as a positive moral assertion of vindication, but rather responding to the rather ridiculous claim that homosexuality is unnatural. It demonstrably isn't.
SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....
I know that the pro-gays aren't advancing the normalness. I was refering to a specific statement made by Silver, nothing more.
Chimaera said on Sep 05, 2006....
Really? Where did Silver equate natural with normal?
SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....
That he didn't I suppose I read that into the fact that he said that the argument about it being unnatural is faulty becaus animals are homosexual as well.
Chimaera said on Sep 05, 2006....
Cool.

He's right, too.
silverwhisper said on Sep 06, 2006....
things have been somewhat crazy, which precluded my participating in this discussion as i would have liked.

and now i see that it's more or less over. :<

:>

ed
InterplanetJanet said on Sep 06, 2006....
I hate the word "normal;" it is a completely subjective standard and means something different to each individual. The word "natural" I see as a description of something that exists or is created in nature; the antonym is "artificial."

I think I am "normal." I have a wife, two kids, a dog, I live in a house in the suburbs, we have two cars, a canoe, even a goddamned picket fence. However, if you asked a bible-thumper from South Carolina if my life is "normal," he'd likely say, "no." Likewise, if someone asked me the same question about the aforementioned bible-thumper, I'd likely say, "no," as well. To me, it's not normal to hate people because of sexual orientation, religious conviction, or really for any judgmental reason.

Sean, my statement: "Gay marriage should be a right, but not for the reasons that everyone thinks." means that some people (like madstorm, for example) think gays want to get married for the sole purpose of being married. That is not a true assertion. As I explained, the push for the legalization of gay marriage is an attempt by the gay community to get a legal recognition of equality. It's more a symbol for how gays want to be treated than a desire to get hitched. I consider myself married under the eyes of God to my wife; yet, I want a law recognizing that I am permitted to marry my wife because we are equal to all other citizens of this nation.

To me, this harkens back to anti-miscegenation statutes, which were created after slavery was abolished to prevent the freed blacks from enjoying equal treatment under the law. There was a huge propaganda campaign (spearheaded by the Democrats (who by the way were more conservative than the Republicans until the 1960s when political ideologies flip-flopped)) that consisted of distributing pamphlets that appeared to support the mixing of races. The pamphlets described a world of only one race because the mixing of races would be so prevalent and everyone would participate and distinctions between whites and blacks would no longer exist. The pamphlets were created to stir up fear in ignorant citizens.

Do you see a correlation to the anti-gay marriage movement? Obviously, allowing mixed-race marriage has not led to an annihilation of any one race. The arguments against gay marriage that point to legalized polygamy and beastiality are similar propaganda techniques.

[ed, you get up waaaay too early]
Indiefilm said on Sep 06, 2006....
IPJ: I'm going to let my ignorance show a bit here, don't take this as anything but what it is...

Other than the right to have a "legal" marriage & adoption, what other rights do I, a straight man, have that a gay man doesn't?

What 'extra rights' does my wife have that yours doesn't?

Predjudice of the ignorant asside, what rights under the law, other than marriage, are you talking about when you say "he push for the legalization of gay marriage is an attempt by the gay community to get a legal recognition of equality.".

How are you "un-equal" under the law? I'm pretty sure that you have the same rights as I do when it comes to voting, owning land, owning a business, and getting an education... so what is it? What rights?
silverwhisper said on Sep 06, 2006....
there are over 1000 separate legal rights a legal spouse possesses which others do not, including power of attorney, right of inheritance, next of kin status (important for hospitals and illnesses) and a host of other ones. i don't have a link but i'm fairly certain IPJ does. :>

ed
Indiefilm said on Sep 06, 2006....
SW: Power of attorney doesn't have to be a spouse... I could give my dog a power of attorney if I could convince a notary that he was an actual person. well, maybe not that, but a power of attorney could be granted to just about anyone, as long as it's notorized. Hell, you can even grant it to a lawyer if your crazy enough.

What's more, its possible for two friends to buy a house 'with rights of survivorship.' if one of them kicks the bucket, the other gets full ownership of the house. No inheritence tax, No marriage licence needed. Also possible to add a person to a deed prior to your death. I.E. a child or loved one who you want to 'inherite' the property. The rights of survivorship mean exactly that, if you survive the other person on the deed, you get full ownership. which is different than a transfer of ownership, in that you already own it.

Most poeple take it in the rear from inheritance issues, the governments roughly 50% inheritance tax sees to that... So equal status doesn't really help if you don't know how to legally get around it anyway.

the 1000 legal rights for spouses still fall under the right to marry. My point is that it sounded like IPJ was downplaying the right to marry as the main reason for wanting the right to marry.

I'm aware that there are legal benefits to marriage, I'm also aware that kids are a tax write off. (which is not a good reason to have them...). What I'm not aware of, is the other legal inequities that she hinted at.
InterplanetJanet said on Sep 06, 2006....
Rights that you have as a legally married couple (that gay couples do not have):
- survivorship (there is a presumption that real property, bank accounts, personal property passes to your spouse upon your death)
- intestacy (it is presumed that your spouse takes all when you die without a will)
- tenancy by the entirety (a property law that joins property to married couples; this is not available to anyone but married couples)
- divorce
- inheritance
- next of kin status
- employment benefits
- retirement benefits
- insurance benefits (I can't have the same auto insurance policy as my wife)
- tax benefits (filing status as married)
- stepparent adoption (because the father of my wife's children will not condone it, I am not a legal guardian of my children)
- ability to sue for the wrongful death of a spouse
- make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse
- use sick leave to care for an ill spouse
- no tax on the value of your spouse's health care benefits (when you file a joint tax return)
- receive the birth and death records of a spouse
- file for state disability benefits on behalf of a mentally ill spouse
This list is not exhaustive, and marriage rights/laws are different state to state, but I have some real work to do today.

Moreover, Indie, gays want equality. When there is a law enacted telling me that I cannot do something that hetero people can do, I am being discriminated against. This also applies to the present situation where there is no law, per se, banning gay marriage, but the interpretation of state laws de facto bans such unions.

Yes, single people have equal rights. Hooray. When you decide one day to get married to your love, however, you will not face discrimination and I will. Through such laws (and interpretations of laws), a stigma is placed on gay people. The stigma has far-reaching effects on equal treatment of gays.

My law firm has weekly meetings to discuss work load, legal issues, etc. This week's meeting also included an open session discussion of former NJ Gov. McGreevey (who is gay). Quite a bit of gay bashing went on in this meeting and all I wanted to do was crawl under the table. I was forced to sit there calmly and pretend like I was enjoying the discussion for fear that someone would find out I'm gay. It is so easy to say that we're all equal, but when your boss is Catholic and abhors gays, I'm not going to raise my hand and let him

silverwhisper's tags:

silverwhisper's most popular posts:

silverwhisper reads (732):

Who's reading silverwhisper (772):

on the nature of gay marriage

Comments

hottmom said on Sep 01, 2006....

Girlyklvj said on Sep 01, 2006....

madstorm said on Sep 01, 2006....

nytquill17 said on Sep 01, 2006....

bridfair said on Sep 01, 2006....

FaithfulDisciple said on Sep 01, 2006....

happykat said on Sep 01, 2006....

silverwhisper said on Sep 01, 2006....

InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

quidnunc said on Sep 01, 2006....

silverwhisper said on Sep 01, 2006....

InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

silverwhisper said on Sep 01, 2006....

InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

SeanRenaud said on Sep 01, 2006....

desertsienna said on Sep 01, 2006....

silverwhisper said on Sep 01, 2006....

InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

Bordy said on Sep 01, 2006....

InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

Bordy said on Sep 01, 2006....

secretlife said on Sep 01, 2006....

InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

Bordy said on Sep 01, 2006....

Indiefilm said on Sep 01, 2006....

madstorm said on Sep 01, 2006....

InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

FaithInMind said on Sep 01, 2006....

SeanRenaud said on Sep 01, 2006....

InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

silverwhisper said on Sep 01, 2006....

SeanRenaud said on Sep 01, 2006....

Bordy said on Sep 01, 2006....

SeanRenaud said on Sep 01, 2006....

silverwhisper said on Sep 02, 2006....

Bordy said on Sep 02, 2006....

silverwhisper said on Sep 02, 2006....

Bordy said on Sep 02, 2006....

Amalia said on Sep 02, 2006....

Bordy said on Sep 02, 2006....

SeanRenaud said on Sep 02, 2006....

Chimaera said on Sep 02, 2006....

silverwhisper said on Sep 02, 2006....

SeanRenaud said on Sep 02, 2006....

scalywag said on Sep 02, 2006....

silverwhisper said on Sep 02, 2006....

silverwhisper said on Sep 03, 2006....

Chimaera said on Sep 03, 2006....

silverwhisper said on Sep 03, 2006....

Chimaera said on Sep 03, 2006....

silverwhisper said on Sep 03, 2006....

Dazlak said on Sep 03, 2006....

Anselm said on Sep 03, 2006....

InterplanetJanet said on Sep 04, 2006....

SeanRenaud said on Sep 04, 2006....

Chimaera said on Sep 04, 2006....

desertsienna said on Sep 04, 2006....

silverwhisper said on Sep 04, 2006....

SeanRenaud said on Sep 04, 2006....

silverwhisper said on Sep 04, 2006....

Anselm said on Sep 04, 2006....

silverwhisper said on Sep 04, 2006....

Chimaera said on Sep 04, 2006....

SeanRenaud said on Sep 04, 2006....

Chimaera said on Sep 04, 2006....

Chimaera said on Sep 04, 2006....

SeanRenaud said on Sep 04, 2006....

Lysander said on Sep 05, 2006....

SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....

InterplanetJanet said on Sep 05, 2006....

RollingC said on Sep 05, 2006....

SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....