 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Mindseye - I'm responding mainly to correct your mistakes, which will still make this post quite voluminous 
quote:
Well, while there is debate as to just what they precisely were (translation issues among others), they were very similar in practice to contemporary early Christian heterosexual marriage rites (i.e. two guys standing before an altar holding right hands, surrounded by circle of friends, a priest blessing their union, wrapping a stole or veil around them, exchanging marriage crowns, feast afterwards, etc). So in order to answer your question, we would first have to ask if then-contemporary heterosexual marriages could "qualify as marriages now".
By the way, the male-male ceremonies practiced in Fujian province are well-documented. |
We have same sex ceremonies now, so what? I've never said homosexuals didn't have ceremonies etc, only that "marriage" has traditionally involved men and women.
quote:
How is that ridiculous? Before, adults were allowed to legally marry pre-pubescent children. You don't call that a major change? I sure do. |
No, I don't call a change in consent laws a major change - same sex "marriage" would be a major change.
quote:
Ok, Berzerker. Put your typing gloves back on. I still want to get married. |
Then get married, just don't ask the government to compel the rest of us to accept your re-definition of the word.
quote:
No, that wasn't my argument. My argument was that marriage has already undergone major change, even during the history of the US, one of them being the banning of restrictions on inter-racial marriage, which was illegal in 40 of 48 states. Fundamental changes to marriage law in the US are nothing new, and arguing that fundamental change is somehow intrinsically bad doesn’t take US history into account. |
quote:
I don't know how you can call state laws in 40 of 48 states "local" but nonetheless the law was changed - that was my point. In marriage, both the traditions and the law have changed significiantly and fundamentally. |
This was a local restriction, I'm talking about the tradition of marriage which obviously involves the world, not localities. And you're still trying to argue that a change in age of consent laws is a major change in the definition of marriage, therefore other major changes like allowing same sex unions are justified. C'mon Mindseye, comparing a small change in age of consent is not a "major" change, certainly not on par with what you advocate. I can't take you seriously when you try to make such comparisons...
quote:
But we are talking about a proposal to change the legal definition. |
But those legal definitions were not contradictory to the tradition, you want a law that does contradict the tradition. If they were contradictory, they should be opposed too.
quote:
In a discussion about changing the definition of marriage to include gays, you seem to be arguing that gays aren't worthy of marriage because ... they don't fit the current definition! |
"Unworthy" was your word, I was quoting you (notice the quotation marks?). And they don't fit the definition, current or not.
quote:
Sorry, but that's simply absurd. In law, words and meanings have enormous import, even potentially fatal ones. |
That's a strange argument for you to make given your desire to play Orwel with the word "marriage".
quote:
In this case, we're talking about the right of millions of Americans to enjoy a basic human right, the right to get married. That's a little more than "the meaning of a word, nothing more nothing less". |
Then get married, have a ceremony, just don't ask the government to compel the rest of us to accept your re-definition as valid.
quote:
Nice dodge. I said "imagine', I was using a hypothetical analogy. |
Oh stop it, that was not a hypothetical, it was an appeal to the treatment of blacks in US history. You dodged my point, btw.
quote:
This kind of speciousness on your part really make these cut-n-quote debates tedious. |
Trust me, correcting your mistakes is hardly a walk in the park.
quote:
Um, yeah - in terms of our sexual orientation. But because we are different in that respect it does not follow that we are different in others. |
Nice dodge.
quote:
By the way, the reason I prefer "gay" to "homosexual" is that "gay" more clearly includes the difference in our romanticattractions, whereas "homosexual" focuses more strictly on the sexual. After all, marriage is more about love than sex. You do understand that gay people fall in love like everyone else, don't you? |
I don't care why you use "gay" in place of homosexuality, you don't see heterosexuals trying to get homosexuals to adopt some euphemism for romance or love in place of heterosexual love. And asking condescending questions is tedious too...
quote:
And that's why we are seeking a change to the legal definition. We want to get married like everyone else, and we don't see any reason why we should be denied this basic human right. |
The word doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore than the word "single". You just ignored the point...
quote:
Okay, if I have to spell it out for you ... your hypothetical was about people who are not in unions wanting to be treated like people in unions. My reply pointed out that we are instead talking about two different kinds of people in unions, but are treated differently. Big difference. |
There is no difference, homosexuals want benefits accorded married people, so why can't single people get those benefits too? Because the definition of marriage doesn't include single people just as it doesn't include same sex unions.
quote:
Oh, and here I was thinking all this time that you were objecting to the changing of words' definitions! But isn’t that what you meant when you said... |
quote:
Okay, anyway, now that we at last understand you don't actually object to changing the definitions of words, can you explain why you are against the specific change we are talking about? |
The little changes you've highlighted never changed the definition of marriage involving male-female.
quote:
Once again, you seem to be caught in whirlpool of circular logic. When gay people ask that their unions be considered marriages, you say that they cannot because ... their unions are not marriages! |
That isn't circular logic, the definition doesn't include same sex unions. Pointing that out is not "circular"...
quote:
Homosexuals can get married? Are we still talking about the USA? |
Get together with your mate and make a contract that says your union is a marriage. Real simple, huh? Homosexuals don't want marriage, they want government to compel the rest of us to accept their marriages.
quote:
But that doesn’t help us much in the eyes of the law, does it? "Calling ourselves married" won't help much when the auto insurer says a gay guy has to pay more because he's "not married". It won't help when long-estranged relatives sweep in to take over when a gay partner is in intensive care. It won't help much in a child custody battle, will it? And "calling myself married" certainly won't do much for me if I try to bring a Chinese partner into my home country, will it? |
We can all see now what the agenda is, benefits, not marriage.
You want the government to point the proverbial gun in our faces to compel us to accept homosexual marriage.
quote:
So what? Are you the same guy who was just repeatedly objecting to changing the meanings of words? |
I'm objecting to changing the meaning of marriage, the fact I use words that have changed over the eons doesn't oblige me to accept every interest group's desire to re-define words when it suits them. Got that?
quote:
How about if the small minority is able to prove that existing laws are unfair? How about when a small minority changes the general public opinion (the tide is steadily turning gay marriage you know...)? |
Then prove it. Marriage excluding homosexuals is no more unfair than marriage excluding single people.
quote:
I'm not surprised you doubt it, it would be a further blow to your already shaky arguments. Here's some figures:
* Number of Americans in inter-racial marriages in 1970 (three years after Loving v. Virginia):
642,000 (Source: http://www.census.gov/population/so...nterractab1.txt)
* Current number of gay Americans over age 18 (based on estimated 5% incidence rate of homosexuality):
10,456,405
If even just 7% of gays wanted to get married, their numbers would exceed those who sought inter-racial marriage in 1967. So now can we drop the lame "demands of a small minority" arguments? |
Ah, sorry for mis-reading your post. I thought you said the number if people accepting of inter-racial marriage was smaller that the number of people accepting of homosexual marriage. Obviously if we are debating what percentage of the population it takes to change a definition, your question was a departure from that issue since it doesn't matter how many people want to marry inter-racially or the same sex, just the number amenable to the change.
quote:
Huh? But before the law was changed it did have a race requirement! That's why the law was changed! |
But the definition and tradition of marriage had/has no race requirement. You're citing a local law and I'm pointing out that the actual definition of marriage (i.e., the dictionary) makes no mention of race, just genders. So, what have I been telling you? That I would oppose any law that sought to re-define the word marriage? That's why I would have opposed a law that told whites and blacks that they cannot marry, because the law sought to re-define marriage.
quote:
But you didn’t live back then. Could you answer the question, please? |
That's right, I live now and I oppose using the government to change the definition again. It isn't arbitrary and I've explained why.
quote:
Not, because (1) "gay" has no disrespectful meaning (frowns or otherwise) |
Shouldn't we ask people named "Gay" how they feel about their name being hi-jacked by homosexuals? You just accused me of insulting you based on how you view a word, so isn't that true for other people?
quote:
and (2) at the time of my writing that meaning of "gay" is already in conventional usage, it's not my personal meaning that's somehow different from everyone else's (as you claim your "pig" comment was). |
So if the dis-respect is conventional, that's okay?
quote:
If you really think that the majority "frowns upon" gay people, I think you are rather out of step with contemporary America. |
I live here, where do you live? I said the majority at best tolerates homosexuality if not frowns upon it. I believe that statement is accurate...
quote:
By the way, given your evidently very great concern for people with the surname Gay, where were you during that slug-fest thread over young people using the term "gay" to mean "lame" or "bad"? |
Oh, I missed a thread so my "very great concern" over people named "Gay" is dis-ingenuous now? I thought referring to homosexuals as "gay" showed no dis-respect toward people with that name because it was conventional.
quote:
The current laws match the preceding concepts? Not following you here. |
The current laws dealing with divorce, voting, and slavery do not contradict the concepts of divorce, voting, and slavery.
quote:
Alleged? I gave you cites to two books documenting two examples (one in Europe, one in China). I think that constitutes a bit more than an "allegation"! |
You cited those books AFTER I asked for proof. And even the proof you did cite only mentioned unions and ceremonies, not marriage.
quote:
We just don’t practice it anymore? Sorry, there was a fundamental change of law involved. Those laws are on the books, you can look them up yourself if you don't believe me. |
Like I said, local laws are irrelevant to what the concept of marriage means. The fact local tribes were monotheistic doesn't mean pagans didn't practice traditional forms of religion.
quote:
Sorry, these weren't minor changes. |
Compared to what you advocate, they were small changes.
quote:
Regarding a wife as a husband's property, allowing adults to marry pre-pubescent children, prohibiting a woman from initiating a divorce in all but the most dire of situations, prohibiting inter-racial marriages - these were anything but trivial legal changes to the practice of marriage. If you think inter-racial marriage was a "minor" issue, you should read some newspapers from that time (you'll see many of your own arguments ). In 1967 it was certainly considered a major change. |
These were all laws that either had no impact on the traditional definition of marriage or had little impact. I've already said that just because a law was changed doesn't mean I would have supported it. You seem to think that if a law changed, I'm obliged to support both the change and the change you want now. You're wrong.
quote:
Perhaps not absolutely universally, but certainly on a widespread basis throughout world history, including the history of the US. |
When were wives property in the US? Some of the practices you've been citing fit the definitions of slavery and indentured servitude, not marriage. If a tribe long ago practiced a form of slavery that made the "wife" the property of the "husband", how do you know they called tha arrangement "marriage"? Hell, I reject your assertion that marriage included slavery/property, etc...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Part 2
quote:
Historically, voting has largely been the privilege of the male land-owners. If you want to pare down the concept of voting to "one who votes", then I suppose you won't object to paring down the concept of "marriage" to "those who marry", right? |
There is nothing in the definition of "voter" that requires excluding non-male, non-landowners from voting, there is something in the definition of marriage that does require excluding homosexuals from marrying each other. Again, I'm using the dictionary to define the word, not a local law.
quote:
Either you are being specious again, or you just didn’t get it. Let me try again: |
You just repeated yourself, so I'll repeat myself - the definition of the word includes straight people. How many straight people at poly would forego homosexual unions to preserve the meaning of homosexual unions? Yeah...
quote:
But it is involved in marriage, and you seem to be arguing to keep it that way. |
Read what I say, not what I "seem" to say.
quote:
Every time any gay person tries to get married, the government singles them out and intervenes, denying them the chance to participate in a basic human right. If you don't think that's government intervention, I don't think you are much of a libertarian! |
You can't refrain from putting me in the position of defending government policies I don't support, so I don't really care what you think.
quote:
Okay, let me re-phrase the question: do you object to the changes to the legal definitions of "voter" and "citizen" in US history? |
Nope, they don't contradict the concept of voters and citizens.
quote:
Second question: These changes in legal definition made the practice different from tradition, right? |
Nope, they changed recent laws, not tradition or the actual definitions of voter or citizen.
quote:
Now who is the "mindreader"? I'm glad you know better than we do why we want to get married. |
Once homosexual unions have the same weight as marriage, homosexuals will use the law to launch lawsuits at people who don't treat them as married people.
quote:
Do you REALLY think gays are fighting this battle simply to obtain employee benefits? That's so cynical. |
And other benefits afforded married people. Hell, you've acknowledged this is part of the agenda.
quote:
Why can't you understand that gay people share the same hopes, dreams, and aspirations that others enjoy? |
And having a politican say you're married will allow you to realise your hopes and dreams? Right!
quote:
This is exactly the kind of thinking I'm referring to when I say that the arguments of many who oppose gay marriage are "mean-spirited". |
Oh well... I don't need the approval of a politician to find self-esteem...
quote:
Let me demolish that nasty assumption with a single stroke: If gay people were really in this only for the benefits, why would they be fighting for MARRIAGE? |
Because marriage will allow for lawsuits based on discrimination claims.
quote:
Why wouldn’t they settle instead for separate-but-equal civil unions? That would sure be an easier battle! |
Many homosexuals will settle for that.
quote:
But many gays are not willing to simply settle for civil unions. In fact, many (including me) are indignant over the suggestion that we should accept the same rights, but in a different "not-quite-the-same" wrapper. Would we feel that way and make these arguments and go through all this struggle if all we cared about were getting employee benefits and the like? Sorry, but your claim just doesn’t make sense in light of that. |
I can't speak to every motivation of every homosexual any more than you can, but the fact you cited benefits as a reason for homosexual unions before "dignity" tells me what I need to know.
quote:
I meant at what price would they be willing to give up marrying. |
What did I say? No price? When homosexuals ask for the "right" to "marry" with a provision that allows everyone to discriminate against homosexuals in the benefits realm, then I'll take y'all seriously. Now, you ask "at what levels are "benefits" so high that someone should be asked to give up their chance to marry?" Okay, will homosexuals accept the right to marry without these benefits? Be honest.
quote:
Now, to answer you. Obviously I cannot speak for all gays, but I think most would reply: D*amned right! |
And I say, BS. I've never heard 1 homosexual advocate of marriage argue that.
quote:
I don't think you have ever answered this question. You just keep repeating that no one should get benefits. That's fine, but that's not the question I'm asking. |
Obviously your question is irrelevant if I oppose benefits to both groups.
quote:
We need a smiley for "conspiracist". |
Or just a re-attachment to reality. The homosexual agenda is the expansion of government control over our lives and the benefits they seek to get via more laws is proof. Hell, the irony is that I support a political party that agrees with homosexual marriage without the mandated benefits and most homosexuals support a political party that opposes homosexual marriage but with benefits to homosexual unions. Explain that one...
quote:
Why do you persist in refusing to grant us the same feelings and dreams that everyone else has? |
You need government to grant you your dreams and feelings? Wtf?
quote:
Here are two questions I would really like you to answer:
(1) Do you think most straight people get married for benefits?
(2) Why do you assume gay people have a different motivation than straight people do for getting married? |
1) No
2) No
But if there was no marriage at all now and heterosexuals said they want a special contract called "marriage" and that this new contract would be imposed on the rest of us with required benefits, I'd reject their proposal and question if they really wanted "marriage" or if they just wanted the benefits.
quote:
Hmm, it sure seemed to be good enough reason to re-define it in 1967. |
Did that law change require a change in the actual definition of marriage ala the dictionary? No... Did that law change require a change in the tradition of marriage? No... That isn't true for homosexual "marriage".
quote:
Maybe it's time for a quote from that decision (Loving v. Virginia). Please read this carefully, Berzerker: |
Do you see the word "Marriage" starting that paragraph?
quote:
But why would I care if I was already providing those benefits to everyone else? |
You should care if you oppose their existing benefits already.
quote:
Who the h*ll are you to tell me (or anyone else) why I want to get married? Weren't you the one calling me a "mindreader? Jesus, I don't even live in the US, I don't stand to get any of these employee benefits you are so concerned about. |
Then deal with your country, but who the h*ll am I? I just quoted you!!! You said it was about a more equitable distribution of other people's money. I don't have to be a mindreader to quote your justifications for your position...
quote:
Unfortunately, I do. |
Then you have the problem, not me.
quote:
Without that validation, the government won't recognize my union in the same way it recognizes those of straight people, in many legal ways. Just one example, if I find the man of my dreams and form a life-long union with him, I cannot bring him back to the US, except under a two-week tourist visa! On the other hand, if my straight (American) friend finds a life-mate, he/she is automatically granted US citizenship. Do you think that's fair, Mr. Libertarian? |
Ah, so you need validation because of the benefits you'll receive!!! Thanks for making my point. Now, why don't you seek a change in the law wrt immigration if that's the problem?
quote:
No, I meant that you seem to think the value of marriage is low because you think I should give up the basic human right to marry simply because you are worried about the trivial cost of some employee benefits. |
You're the one arguing for a right to marry because of these benefits, not me.
quote:
Now, I would like to ask again, if I may: are you married? |
Not any more, if it's any of your business.
quote:
And if not: How would you feel if I asked you to permanently forego marriage because I felt the cost of your potential benefits was too high? |
I'd tell you I'd forego the benefits. When homosexuals say that, then I'll think their motives may be pure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
part 3
quote:
But what if a whole raft of rights were based on government recognition of that contract? Then do you feel gay unions ("contracts") should be restricted? |
You mean thos benefits you claim are not the goal of homosexuals? Hmm... Depends on the "rights".
quote:
And why, pray tell, do you think gays feel differently on this score? |
The fact homosexuals keep justifying their agenda by pointing to benefits.
quote:
Oh, I thought you cared about the numbers of marriages because of the potential costs of benefits? |
No, that's a different issue.
quote:
You mean that you don't? And since gay marriages are less likely to include children, you should have even less of an objection to them, right? |
On the issue of children, yes. Although once homosexual marriage is affirmed by law, homosexuals will have grounds to sue for adoption rights and I don't think that is in the best interest of children.
quote:
That's not what we have now? |
I want government out of marriage. Period.
quote:
The law in place now prohibits me from marrying. And you argue that it should not be changed. What else am I to conclude? |
Where did I say I support the law? What I oppose is the expansion of a law I already oppose.
quote:
Is there something wrong with that? |
Just correcting Ramo, is there something wrong with that?
quote:
If there is, you might have a problem with laws abolishing slavery (pressure from a special interest group - abolitionists - came first) and laws granting women the right to vote (pressure from a special interest group - suffragettes - came first). |
Why? I didn't say I have a problem with special interest groups applying pressure.
quote:
What if failing to re-define a word denies someone a basic human right based solely on a circumstance of birth? |
You can exercise your right to marry as long as your marriage fits the definition of marriage.
quote:
And, are you saying that the reasons for changing the definition of marriage to include gays are not good reasons? |
Yup, the word has a definition and it doesn't include homosexuals.
quote:
Yet, you hold that for gay people, there are no marriages based on love (they would instead be based on chasing a "pot of gold")! |
quote:
And again, you blithely overlook the fact that those "contracts" will not be honored by the government. |
Not honored by government, imposed on the rest of us.
quote:
You believe incorrectly. In fact, gays do not have the same rights as straights if their partner dies, even if a will is involved, a will that can be contested by "immediate family members" whose rights can trump a life-partner's. |
All wills can be contested. Look at what happened to Anna Nicole Smith.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
I can boil it down to this. If homosexuals, or ANYONE, supports the concept of marriage because of the unfortunate existence of benefits, what they are doing is morally wrong.
However, if homosexuals, or ANYONE, supports the concept of marriage out of a wish to enter into a legal contract with a person they are in love with, it is immoral to prevent them from doing so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
I don't see anything wrong with benefits being tied to marriage, David. |
I do - the "benefits" are simply yet another "wealth transfer" program. If you wanna get married, great. You shouldn't be entitled to anything - the most the government should do is recognize your contract.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
I believe in French only the civil marriage count as being marry than only governmental official can marry you, any church marriage have no legal standing under French Law.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
David, you got it right.
As to religion, I think a direct approach to the Vatican can do wonders. The Church will have to change its position if it is confronted with evidence that homosexuality is genetic. If the Church discourages sex outside marriage, to be consistent, it may become the strongest advocate of gay marriages.
Besides, the grassroots of the Catholic church may already be with you. It is well known that a significant number of Caltholic priests are homosexuals. |
That was the Church dirtly little secret from the Middle age when the Roman Church Ban priest from being marry. In the Greek Church just as old as the Roman Church all priest where encourge to be marry if they want to be than priest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:32
|
|
Berzerker -
I took a try at responding to all 73 separate splinters of our discussion, but I just don’t think that anything useful can be achieved from addressing them individually. The snip-n-quote practice has diminished the relevance of many of them to the point where they are simply not worth the typing time, not to mention the fact that few or our fellow posters could be expected to follow such a form of discussion.
Instead, I have decided to sum up my arguments into a statement. I invite you to resist the temptation to snip-n-quote, and instead reply in kind. At that point, unless you have any new arguments, I think I have said all I can, as well as I can.
I strongly suggest you discuss this topic with your gay friends, or try to find out how gay people really feel about getting married. I know if someone were asking me to support a law interfering with someone else's very right to marry, I would require an extraordinary reason before I would support such a law, at any price.
- mindseye
----------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF MY ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF GAY MARRIAGE
If customs are the fabric of culture, so to are definitions and words the fabric of language, and legal definitions the fabric of law. All three of these have changed a very great deal, both across the reaches of time and across the variation of cultures. We are now considering another such change, that of allowing gay people full and equal access to the legal rite of marriage in the United States.
Changing Traditions and Legal Definitions
Some argue that long-standing traditions and legal definitions should not be changed, yet customs and legal definitions are periodically changed to reflect transformations and evolutions of our society. Fundamental changes to customs and legal definitions have been made before, regardless of the weight of tradition. However obvious they appear to us now, to the generations considering the issues of slavery and women's suffrage, the proposed changes must have seemed a radical departure from custom indeed. In respect to marriage in the USA, customs and legal traditions have already been changed in many ways, including barring the participation of pre-pubescent children, allowing women the ability to terminate a marriage, and allowing members of different races to marry. The mere weight of tradition and custom can be no barrier when it comes to the question of denying anyone a basic human right, especially a right so central to one's life as the opportunity to marry a person of one's own choosing.
Procreation and Families
Some claim that the heart of marriage is the protection or encouragement of child-bearing. Yet couples not capable of child-birth are not denied the chance to marry, so marriage is clearly not granted or denied on that basis. Neither are capable couples punished in any way for failing to procreate. As for child rearing, gay people have already shown themselves to be every bit as capable, supportive, and loving as parents as their straight counterparts. Studies to date have found that children with gay parents are well-adjusted, and no more likely than others to become homosexual. If one of the purposes of marriage is to promote stable families, and if two parents are better than one, how can it be in the government's interest to actively interfere with the creation of stable, two-parent families?
Discrimination in Marriage based on Circumstances of Birth
Few serious voices any longer contend that gay people choose their sexual orientation. It is now widely accepted that, whatever its causes, homosexuality is a circumstance of birth - a circumstance over which gay people have no more control than over their race or gender. In the past, our society has, to its great credit, repeatedly decided that basic human rights should not be awarded or denied based on simple circumstances of birth, such as gender or race. Yet this is exactly what is happening when gay people are called on to forego marriage for no other reason than their sexuality, a sexuality not of their own choosing.
In 1967, the United States Supreme Court decided in Loving v. Virginia that marriage could not be denied someone for the simple reason of the color of their skin. In that decision, it was written that:quote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. |
Given that sexuality is as much a circumstance of birth as race, gay people now ask how their case is any different from that of Loving. Gay marriage would not only likely affect more individuals, it also enjoys far larger support among the general public than inter-racial marriage did at the time of Loving.
In terms of the number of citizens directly affected, assuming that 5% of the population is gay, if just 7% of gays over age 18 wished to marry, the number would exceed the total number of inter-racial couples married three years after Loving. These are not the demands of an insignificant minority.
(Source: http://www.census.gov/population/so...nterractab1.txt).
Also, the percentage of the public supporting inter-racial marriage at that time was far smaller than that currently in support of gay marriage. In September 1958, in the first survey of its kind, a Gallup Poll asked white people how they felt about inter-racial marriage:
* Supporting interracial marriage:
-- Southern whites: 1%
-- Non-southern whites: 5%
(Source: The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1935-1971, Volume 2, New York, Random House) .
In fact, not until 1991 did a Gallup poll find more people approving of inter-racial marriage than disapproving.
On the other hand, according to a July 2003 Pew Research Center report, the number of Americans amenable to gay marriage is already far larger - and is steadily rising:
* Supporting gay marriage:
-- 1996: 27%
-- 2003: 38%
(Source: http://www.datalounge.com/dataloung...ml?record=20882)
Benefits
In our system of laws, many rights, benefits, and responsibilities are awarded or denied on the basis of marital status. In a 1997 Congressional Report, the US General Accounting Office identified 1,049 federal laws in which marital status plays a factor. The GAO found that marital status is relevant to a very wide variety of laws, including those pertaining to taxation, immigration, commerce, employment, Social Security, Indian affairs, intellectual property, financial disclosure, conflict of interest, criminal law, domestic abuse, federal natural resources, agricultural loans, veterans benefits, and others. And that's just federal laws - cities and states have their own myriad of laws that also in some way depend upon a citizen's marital status. Affected areas below federal level include hospital visitation rights, insurance, inheritance, rental agreements, ability to make medical decisions, bereavement and sick leave, divorce and child custody laws, and even the ability to choose a final resting place for one's spouse.
(Source: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
It is not reasonable to ask gays to attempt to change each and every one of these laws and regulations (nor likely would it even be possible), when clearly the problem is the legal definition of marriage itself.
If homosexuality is a circumstance of birth, why should gay couples receive less benefits than their straight counterparts? Aren't gays taxpayers, too? Since the public shows no interest in renouncing marriage benefits, why should these benefits not be distributed fairly? Benefits seem very important to straight people, it should be no surprise that they are to gay people, as well. No straight couple is asked to undergo any sort of benefits "litmus test" before applying for marriage. Their motivation is not questioned, and neither should it be.
And what would the costs of such benefits be? Even if a high percentage of gays marry, the impact on the cost of these benefits would not be more than an incremental increase over the amount currently distributed. The experience of other countries such as Belgium should give us an idea. And even if the costs be large - what of it? What benefits are so costly that someone must be asked to forego marriage over it? Are there any straight people who would be willing to give up the opportunity to marry because someone else thought that the possible cost of benefits might be too high?
Are gay people seeking marriage simply to obtain benefits? Is there some sort of gay "agenda" aimed at wrestling dental benefits from frowning, disapproving employers?
The answer to that is quite clear from the mere fact that so many gays are choosing to battle for marriage as opposed to separate-but-equal civil unions. If gays were really only interested in benefits, why on earth would so many of them fight for marriage, a much more difficult battle than gaining gay civil unions, which enjoy wider support among the general population? Cynical accusations that gays are motivated solely or even primarily by a desire to obtain benefits simply don’t hold water given this basic reality of the debate.
Conclusion
Finding one's own true love is one of the dominant, perhaps the pre-dominant theme of our culture's art, music, and literature. Marriage is widely viewed as the ultimate culmination of romance, one of the greatest things a person can enjoy in their life. In this, why should gays be expected to feel any differently than everyone else? Straight people spend great amounts of money, time, and energy in planning, celebrating and commemorating their marriages. For many gay people, marriage to their special loved one looms equally large in their hearts and desires. What business does the government have in denying gay people this basic human right, a right not denied prisoners on death row, a right more precious even than that of voting? Before the government denies any group equal access to a basic human right, it must show very great reason indeed. Nothing approaching such a reason has been shown in the objections to gay marriage to date.
 Let the wedding bells ring!
Last edited by mindseye on 09-12-2003 at 23:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
Oh, you've said that once before, and I already ignored it's irrelevancy once.
But look. If you think marriage is simply about love and romance, then you don't even NEED a contract. Obviously, though, marriage is a contract, that hopefully includes love and romance - but primarily, the act of getting married is entering into a contract.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Mindseye - quote:
David, you are such a romantic!
I'm imagining you going down on bended knee before your sweetheart, taking her hand in yours, and tenderly asking her to enter into a contract with you. |
Possibly you don't realise this, but you're making fun of your own argument there. Because a "contract" is exactly what you want the government to recognise. David's response shows why:
quote:
But look. If you think marriage is simply about love and romance, then you don't even NEED a contract. |
So which is it? A contract or love? You MAY need the government to recognise the former, but you sure don't need it for the latter...
And I'll just repeat the irony here, I support the political party that would legalise homosexual marriage - the Libertarian Party - and most homosexuals apparently support the Democrat Party which will not legalise homosexual marriage. I think that shows the real agenda here, it's about money/benefits, not human rights. That's a smokescreen homosexuals use to hide behind...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Berz, it would be interesting to see if the Framers believed that "free exercise" would permit polygamy, since at the time polygamy was sanctioned, if not required, by Islam. But, the Reynolds court did address this in away by distinguishing the "culture" of Northern and Western Europe from so-called "Asiatic" countries - meaning Constantinople and parts East. The divide they noted was between Christian Europe and Muslim Europe. |
Islam only allow than man to have up to 4 wifes at a time and only if he can support then and treat them all equall. The Christian in America who didnot like the Church Of Jesus Christ and Later Day Saint are being bitten by the Court taken away force school prayer, public display of religious symbols round Christmas time. Than are thet going to do when Islam become the magority religion in America. Islam is become the magority religion in Europe already(future growth
as European woman have less than 2.1 children to maintain stable populateion figure) muslum woman have on than average 4 or 5 childern in Europe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
|
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:32
|
|
Ned -
Sorry, I did not intentionally ignore your post, I was rather pre-occupied with my exchanges with Berzerker. 
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
The quote from Loving says that marriage (meaning between a man and women at that time) was "fundamental to our existence and survival." Because of this you claim that gays have a fundamental right to marriage even though their marriage has nothing to do with our existence and survival. |
No, my argument was that Loving ruled that marriage could not be restricted on the basis of skin color. Since homosexuality is no more self-determined than skin color, the same arguments apply.
If you are arguing that the ruling was based strictly on forms of marriage capable of producing children, I would again refer you to the fact that couples incapable of bearing children are currently allowed to marry.
quote:
Your summary does not address the conflict with Christianity and Islam. |
What conflict? I'm talking about civil marriage, I do not propose that any religion be forced to change their own religious rites. If you are worried about a potential conflict between civil rites and religious rites, does not current American divorce law conflict with Islamic religious practice?
quote:
You assume that anyone has a Constitutional right to do things which offend the "religious dogma" of a majority. Reynolds v. US is authority to the contrary. |
Where have I ever made that claim? I'm not even sure what you mean by "do things". You mean, like free speech? Burning down a mosque?
My argument would instead be that the religious dogma of the majority (or any religious group) should not trump the basic legal and human rights of any minority.
quote:
Even though Reynolds is long settled law, the so-called rights of bigamists are now again being argued as a result of the several State Court rulings in favor of gay marriage. |
Reynolds was not some sort of blanket ruling that allowed anyone to do anything they want contrary to the majority's religious beliefs! Here's a nice summary of the rationale:
quote:
* Because society is built upon the civil contract of marriage, the government can permissibly pass laws regulating marriage.
* Permitting a certain class of people to willfully defy the nation's laws without repercussions in the name of religious liberty would permit every citizen to become a law unto himself and lead to the existence of a government in name only.
* While laws of the nation cannot interfere with religious beliefs and opinions, they can interfere with religious practices.
(Source http://www.kylewood.com/familylaw/reynolds.htm) |
The idea of gay marriage does not conflict with any of this.
quote:
Also, I do not recall your answering my question about that one Chinese province that once upon a time authorized gay marriages. The question was, how long ago was that? And, why did it end? |
Romance and sexual relations between men has been openly tolerated (and at times even admired) through much of China's long history. The best documented examples involved emperors who openly had gay lovers, but they are the best documented only because the lives of emperors were documented in so much greater detail than the lives of common folk. In fact, two of China's four most famous novels - Story of the Stone ("Honglou Meng") and The Scholars ("Rulin Waishi") - deal with homosexual (and lesbian) themes in ways which make it clear how commonplace such practices were. Besides histories, there is a wealth of other evidence from all manner of sources including paintings, poems, and even jokes.
The male-male marriages I referred to took place in Fujian province during the Ming era. The writer Li Yu (1611-1680) recorded:quote:
In Fujian the southern custom (a Chinese euphemism for male-male sex/romance) is the same as that for women. One tries to discern a youth of whom this is the first marriage. If he is a virgin, men are willing to pay a large bride price. They do not skip the three cups of tea of the six wedding rituals - it is just like a proper marriage with a formal wedding." |
The younger man moved into the older man's home, where he was treated as a son-in-law by the older man's parents. Some male-male couples adopted and raised children. These marriages usually broke up at some point so the men involved could re-marry women in order to sire children (extremely important in Chinese culture, even today). However, many of these male-male marriages lasted twenty years. Li Yu, in one of his works, wrote a tale in which a young man castrated himself in order to stay in his male-male marriage, such was his love for his husband.
This custom of male-male marriage was so common that it even had a deity to whom sacrifices were made. There were special community activities, festivals, and religious rites devoted to male-male love which apparently were participated in by the male community at large.
There is no specific time or reason given for the disappearance of these marriages, however, during the following Qing dynasty the conservative new Manchurian rulers began to restrict the most overt forms of homosexuality (along with other things viewed as excessively liberal Ming holdovers). Yet at least two Qing emperors courted men (Xianfeng, Tongzhi), another (Qianlong) openly had a gay lover. China's last emperor, Puyi, was also apparently gay. Despite Manchurian conservatism, homosexuality continued to be widely tolerated in China at least through the end of the nineteenth century.
There is less evidence in Chinese history about he life of lesbians, mainly because there is so little written about women's personal lives at all. That there was such activity seems clear from the existence of ancient double-headed dildoes. The best-documented female-female marriages took place within the all-female "Golden Orchid Associations" found in southern China. Two women would undergo a marriage ceremony in which one was designated "husband", the other "wife". A ritualistic exchange of gifts was followed by a feast which served to witness the marriage. These unions were life-long. Couples were known to adopt and raise children, who were legally able to inherit property from their adoptive parents. These lesbian marriages were apparently quite common in the Guangzhou area, common enough that a contemporary male observer wrote that "they cannot be escaped within the province". Because Chinese women's history is so fragmentary, I'm afraid I cannot provide many more details than this about lesbian marriages.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003 03:56
|