Subject:
|
Re: Gay Marriage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 06:06:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2605 times
|
| |
|
|
I have to admit, being a Massachusetts-ite, this subject line piqued my
interest. Pardon while I crash the party...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
You are deliberately misinterpreting the Bill of Rights. Of course that
Amendment had nothing to do with the concept of marriage.
|
Doesn’t it though? I think Larry quoted the rights quite accurately. But you can
get more specific than that if you’re interested. I forget off-hand all the
rights denied to a gay couple that isn’t wed, but there’s a long list of special
‘perks’ you get for being married by law. I remember vaugely something about the
way inheritence works (spouses vs. “friends”), hospital visitation rights for
“family/spouses”, etc.
Anyway, here’s where my guess is that the viewpoints differ:
- I think a government exists purely to protect the rights of itself and its citizens
- You think (I’m assuming) that in addition to the above, governments exist to ensure moral action on the part of its citizens.
To put it another way, I think the Constitution gives its citizens the freedom
to be jerks if they so choose, just so long as it doesn’t harm other citizens.
The Ten Commandments say to honor thy father and mother, and not to commit
adultery. Now, I agree that those are great moral rules, and I’ll do my best to
abide by them-- but it’s not the government’s place to tell me to behave
morally.
Perhaps, however, (as it seems from past posts of yours) your view is that such
unions, when allowed, WILL somehow harm other citizens, or the country itself,
and as such shouldn’t be allowed.
If so, shouldn’t your point be that there should be laws against gays being
couples to begin with? IE that homosexuals should not be allowed by law to have
a romantic relationship in any way, as it would degrade the social foundation of
our society?
I’d also point out that I have yet to see any evidence that same-sex marriage
(and relationships) actually WOULD harm anything. Certainly it might affect the
victorian sense of secrecy that’s surrounded the issue in years past, and as
such make it more socially acceptable to the mainstream. But how does that
actually negatively affect anything? I guess the only outcome that I can see is
that helps to increase sexual tolerances, hence breeding less hatred between
hetero- and homo-sexuals, which, to me, sounds like a Good Thing (tm). Where’s
the negativity?
| |
No. You are wrong. Marriage has a specific definition. Go look it up.
The proposed Defense of Marriage Amendment simply seeks to preserve the
definition of marriage, so that it can’t be debased. I’m sorry, it is what
it is (until someone changes it, and most people don’t want to do that)
|
I’m curious-- I hear this time and again, that “Oh, that’s not what our founding
fathers intended!”. Does it actually matter what they intended? Shouldn’t we do
what’s right, and not what they wanted us to do? I mean, aren’t these the same
guys who allowed slavery? If tradition is unjust or immoral, don’t we have a
just or moral obligation to *change* that tradition?
| |
Okay, here’s a utilitarian argument: If the definition of marriage is
changed, then what does it become, and how is any definition (which, uh,
by definition, limits the scope of the concept) justifiable?
|
I think the definition I’d go with is something along the lines of “any two
adult beings of mutual consent may enter into marriage”. Note that most animals
don’t get to be married (But I did say ‘beings’), since we can’t determine their
mutual consent. Maybe if we were able to determine that, it’d be ok. Similarly,
you don’t want immature ‘beings’ (ok, children) to enter into marriage, since
they don’t yet have a good sense of the consequences.
| |
If you change the definition of marriage to anything else, pandora’s box is
opened and the institution ceases to exist, period. What good does that
serve?
|
As mentioned above, there’s certain laws about spouses (and family, too) that
don’t necessarily apply to ‘good friends’. The institution provides a legal
definition of a relationship that makes certain things easier. Who the
individuals need to be in order to qualify really shouldn’t matter, so long as
the above criteria are met.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) I have no problem ending such inequities WRT to married couples verses gays. You don't have to redefine marriage to correct those wrongs! (...) I agree. (...) You assume incorrectly! The government is a terrible arbiter of right and wrong! (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) You are deliberately misinterpreting the Bill of Rights. Of course that Amendment had nothing to do with the concept of marriage. (...) The definition of marriage is the union of one man and one women. NO gay person is excluded from entering (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
