Subject:
|
Re: Gay Marriage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 07:38:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2867 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
| |
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.
|
I have no problem ending such inequities WRT to married couples verses gays.
You don’t have to redefine marriage to correct those wrongs!
| |
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
|
I agree.
| |
- You think (I’m assuming) that in addition to the above, governments exist to ensure moral action on the part of its citizens.
|
You assume incorrectly! The government is a terrible arbiter of right and
wrong!
| |
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.
|
Again, I completely agree.
| |
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.
|
Again, I agree. What consenting adults do isn’t my business (as long as it is
legal).
| |
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.
|
Not the unions, but the standardization of such unions. I am primarily
concerned with the education of our children. I think that such obfuscation of
gender would be damaging and unnecessarily destructive to their development.
| |
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?
|
No. That is wrong. I think it does degrade our social foundation, but then
again I think MTV and Brittany Spears have done far worse.
| |
I’d also point out that I have yet to see any evidence that same-sex marriage
(and relationships) actually WOULD harm anything.
|
If gay marriage became normative, say just another option, I see it as an
extremely confusing matter to young kids. “Billy, when you grow up, are you
going to marry a boy or a girl? Why a girl? What is wrong with a boy, Billy?
Perhaps you should try both before you decide.”
| |
Certainly it might affect
the victorian sense of secrecy that’s surrounded the issue in years past,
|
With the advent of MTV and shows like “Loveline”, I think we can dispense with
any illusions that there is any secrecy left about sex for today’s teens.
| |
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?
|
Sex is a private matter to me. I don’t want to know your sexual preference
because it doesn’t matter to me. So why is it so important to some gays to
shove my nose into their sexuality? Gay parades? Please. Rainbow stickers?
What is the point of that? There is something bizarre about defining oneself WRT
to one’s sexuality. There’s a little more to life than sex!
| |
| |
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?
|
How is defining marriage as the union of 1 man and 1 women “immoral”? That’s
just crazy!
| |
| |
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
|
Whoa there, bigot:-) What about all of the polygamists out there? And how
about all of those incestuous lovers? Are you prepared to “normalize” those
relationships as well? And if not, on what basis?
| |
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.
|
Sisters marrying sisters; fathers marrying daughters and sons; recognizing those
types of relationships really shouldn’t matter?
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) But you also seem to believe that the majority should be able to make anything illegal if it offends their sensibilities. Right? (...) Why? John, you have asserted time and again that I can't know what the result of making the changes that I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) Don't you? I mean, the way US laws are written, I believe there are rights provided to married couples that wouldn't be to anyone under something like 'civil unions'. Speaking of which, is that what you're advocating? If so, how would a 'civil (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| I have to admit, being a Massachusetts-ite, this subject line piqued my interest. Pardon while I crash the party... (...) Doesn't it though? I think Larry quoted the rights quite accurately. But you can get more specific than that if you're (...) (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
|
|
|
|
