Can Michael Steele Really Reframe Gay Marriage as an Economic Issue?
With the California Supreme Court set to issue its ruling on Tuesday on the validity of Proposition 8, a voter-approved initiative to define marriage in the Golden State as the union of one man and one woman, gay marriage will once again dominate the headlines.
This issue has proven nettlesome for both parties. President Obama has tried to soft-pedal his opposition to same-sex marriage by professing his support for “equivalent rights” (whatever that means) for gay people. Meanwhile, Scott Schmidt, a former senior strategist to the McCain campaign has urged Republican candidates to “steer clear of divisive social issues” like gay marriage and abortion in order to become more electorally “viable.”
At the same time as Schmidt advises the GOP to avoid gay marriage, citizens across the country continue to vote in favor of initiatives like Prop 8 which block states from recognizing same-sex unions as marriages. Despite such popular opposition, courts in four states (Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, and Iowa) have ruled that their jurisdictions must recognize same-sex marriages (with Prop 8 invalidating the California ruling). State legislatures in three states (Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine) have passed legislation recognizing same-sex marriages (with New Hampshire’s Democratic Governor John Lynch vetoing the bill, “asking the legislature to include language that would protect churches and other religious institutions from prosecution if, for example, they refuse to perform same-sex marriages.“)
With gay marriage remaining at the forefront of our national consciousness, the Republican Party, seeking to rebuild after losses in two successive national elections, struggles to address the issue without alienating young voters and socially liberal suburbanites who share the GOP’s fiscal and national security principles but are wary of backing socially conservative candidates.
Michael S. Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, believes in “recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits.” This “recasting” could allow the party to bring together social conservatives (who oppose gay marriage on moral grounds) and small businessmen and libertarians (who opposed additional federal and state mandates on private enterprise). But if state recognition of same-sex marriage imposes burdens (by requiring businesses to provide benefits to same-sex spouses), wouldn’t state recognition of traditional marriage be an even greater burden? There are far more different-sex couples than same-sex couples — even in states which have recognized same-sex marriages.
Gay unions can be tolerated in a viable social order. A live and let live philosophy of action is very feasible. Gay marriage, however, is a nihilistic concept. It would severely damage society. The institution of marriage is primarily about the difficult task of raising children. Its other benefits are of a secondary nature. Moreover, there is something else that cannot be ignored: the legalization of gay marriage will inevitably lead to the legalization of threesomes, foursomes, and other peculiar arrangements. The now forsaken Mormon tradition of one man and many wives could no longer be outlawed. And don’t let anyone con you into believing this won’t happen! The legalizing of gay marriage would make it logically inconsistent to say no these people. Lawyers would be challenging the existing laws immediately after gay marriage became legal.
Mr. Blatt is correct that, while there are certainly economic consequences of recognizing same-sex marriage, that is not an effective way for the GOP to frame the debate. If same-sex marriage is to be recognized, it should be through legislation by elected legislators and not through quasi-legislation by judges. Americans are becoming more tolerant of gay unions but they are less accepting of judges using their positions to impose new norms on society. Change by legislation rather than court fiat is in line with principles of democracy, separation of powers and judicial restraint – all popular concepts. While I’m hoping that Michael Steele succeeds in his job as head of the Republican Party, it will not be by reframing social issues as economic ones.
The fallacy of the entire argument is that homosexuals can marry…for example former Gov McGreevy married twice, divorced twice and had children; he was not banned from marriage nor was he thrown in jail for marrying twice.
Rather than re-defining the meaning marriage to fit homosexuality, may I suggest instead to re-define the meaning homosexual to fit of marriage.
What say Gay Agenda, are you open-minded and tolerant to re-defining the meaning of homosexual so that you can marry?
I have asked gay marriage supporters: what if every right that married couples enjoy, that gay couples don’t — benefits at work, hospital visitations, etc. — were granted to gays, *except* that the relationship would not be called “marriage”. Would that be sufficient? Not one has answered yes. All have demanded marriage, the whole ball of wax.
So the point of gay marriage is not freedom for gays. The point is to force people to accept it as a legitimate lifestyle.
In other words, it’s expanding their rights that is the point, but restricting the rights of Christians and others who are opposed for moral or traditional concerns.
Homosexuality is being cast as a civil rights issue BY homosexuals.
Normal people see it for what it is, which is deviant, anti-social behavior. That is why gay marriage gets shot down at the polls every time it is brought to a vote.
The purpose of Marriage is to legitimize children. Since a homosexual union CANNOT produce children, it makes no sense to legitimize what doesn’t and cannot exist.
The economic aspect of marriage is that marriage and the children produced in a marriage are considered beneficial to society. Some would even say essential. So the government doles out tax breaks and allows married couples to keep more of their money.
Homosexuals as a political body are a fringe group. At around 2% of the population, there are enough of them to be noticed but not enough to survive that notice.
What the gay marriage issue does for homosexuals is it expands the recruiting grounds, which gays think will mean an increase in numbers followed by an increase in political power. This would start what homosexuals see as a positive reinforcement cycle. What normal people see is the camels nose peeking into the tent.
What I’m hoping for is a rational study of the problem, in hopes that a cure can be found. What I fear is a massive backlash and queers swinging from lamp posts.
A cure is needed because there appears to be a connection between homosexuals, serial killers and sex crimes of all sorts. Find a cure for homosexuality and we might find a cure for child molestation, serial murder, rape and other unsavory behavior.
Steele can frame the issue however he likes. He will still be wrong. This is about equal treatment under the law. If gays can’t marry, nobody can.
Peace.
DS
Michael Steele . . . I’d support him, but I’d rather have a root canal . . . He’s super smart, if by “smart” you mean “stoopid” . . . dim there, dumb that . . . Thank you, folks, you’re a terrific audience. Stick around, we’ve got a lot more show coming up.
The number of gay marriages is so tiny that to phrase this as an economic issue is issue. The number is tiny both because homosexuals are a very small fraction of the population (about 3-4% of men, and about 1-2% of women), and because the same economic and social incentives for marriage just aren’t there.
Homosexuals were doing much better when their argument was that they had a privacy right. Asserting equal rights under the 14th Amendment requires us to ignore that when the 14th Amendment was ratified, homosexual sex was a felony in every state. I rather doubt that anyone who supported the 14th Amendment had the idea that they were going to guarantee a right even to homosexual sex in private, much less state approval and recognition of same-sex marriage.
As science and technology progress, it has become apparent in the last few decades that being gay isn’t a “lifestyle choice.” It’s not an option. A certain segment of the population finds their own gender attractive and it has been such since time immemorial. This percentage is minimal. The key thing here is that people don’t choose to be gay. They are, or they are not. Most of us knew our sexual orientation by age 12 or so; there came a day when we realised the opposite sex was actually quite interesting. This revelation also occurs to gays; often, it’s horrifying to them.
Being “morally opposed” to being gay is akin to being morally opposed to dim-wittedness. We all know that some of us are slow. Yet we don’t take a dump on them because we know it’s not their choice. And yet where it concerns gay marriage the argument here tends towards calling them deviants or perverts; marriage will do nothing more than legitimise perversion. Certainly the concept of tolerance (the same tolerance that is allowed for the dim-witted) is nowhere to be seen.
One problem with partywide opposition to gays is the twin perceptions of intolerance and being out of touch with science. This might be fine for individuals, but not so good for a political party. At best, all it can really do is shrink the tent.
Which is a conclusion I came to years ago, before gay marriage was even an issue. The abomination of divorce court is a reason enough to abolish government-sanctioned marriage. As (inevitably) more and more gay couples end up in divorce court, gays will eventually rue the day they wanted government sanction.
“to phrase this as an economic issue is issue.”
should be
to phrase this as an economic issue is foolish.
I think Steele should reframe the issue in terms of how many gay angels would fit on the head of a pin.
I think it is crazy to say that Republicans will recover if they would only become more like Democrats. That Republicans have been so WEAK on conservatism is why I have lost interest in the GOP, (liberal John McCain for President? Come on! That’s why a conservative Palin was such a great recruiter, and Public Enemy #1 to the liberal news media). If the Republicans don’t become MUCH more socially and economically conservative, I will look for independents.
#5 Reformed trombonist: “it’s expanding their rights that is the point, but restricting the rights of Christians and others who are opposed for moral or traditional concerns.”
That is a real slippery slope to negotiate. Exactly what rights do Christians or anyone else have to restrict activities by consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes; or in allowing basic rights to all citizens, not just some? Long overdue expansion of rights & equality for blacks occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, over opposition from those with “traditional concerns.”
#10 G. Alston: “one problem with party wide opposition to gays is the twin perception of intolerance and being out of touch with science.” Good thoughts indeed.
#15 — Long overdue expansion of rights & equality for blacks occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, over opposition from those with “traditional concerns.”
That’s a key thought. Recognising gay marriage will happen; it’s not a matter of “if” at all. It’s a matter of “when.” This isn’t a revelation, and I’m not Nostradamus: an alert porcupine can see this coming.
The GOP cannot reframe this issue. Steele is obviously trying to throw the evangelicals a bone. The GOP can continue to try to reframe opposition if it chooses, but this is a losing proposition. It’s not economic; it’s not about traditions (unless ignorance and intolerance are traditions deemed worthy of upholding.) Some will twist or spin this to say that many of the right wing are being asked to endorse what they cannot tolerate. Given the general level of intolerance the better option for the GOP would be to simply not take a position.
In this case it’s far better to have NO position rather than the intolerant one; the intolerant position is going to lose.
To those people who bray about upholding principles and standing for something, I say that standing up for ignorance and intolerance is not something to take pride in.
> That is a real slippery slope to negotiate. Exactly what rights do Christians or anyone else have to restrict activities by consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes; or in allowing basic rights to all citizens, not just some? Long overdue expansion of rights & equality for blacks occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, over opposition from those with “traditional concerns.”
You weren’t listening, SteveB. Let me try again: *no* restrictions on what consenting adults do in their private lives. But that goes two ways. It means I can’t intervene with force regarding their lifestyle choices. It also means they can’t force acceptance out of people who see what they do as wrong.
That is the issue, and always has been. They have never needed anyone’s approval to cohabit and live the way they want as “consenting adults”. This has nothing to do with gay rights, but everything to do out of forcing everyone to approve of homosexuality as an unsinful lifestyle and a valid social contract.
#17 — This has nothing to do with gay rights, but everything to do out of forcing everyone to approve of homosexuality as an unsinful lifestyle and a valid social contract.
You may not be secular, but the state certainly is.
the arguement is that marriage is a positive in this culture. homosexuality has been deemed legal. there is no such thing as seperate but equal. therefore homosexual’s legality presupposes equality with heterosexuality. particularly when the important thing is not procreation, but being able to provide a loving nurturing home for raising children, which homosexuals do and have opened their homes to rejected and abandoned children of heterosexual unions.
from a christian perspective, believing homsexual marriages are filled with the fruit of the spirit in the same way as believing heterosexual marriages. jesus said we would recognize them by their fruit………………fruit of the spirit. the fruit of the spirit of christ being different from the fruit of the spirit of powers and principalities……..powers and principalities being those things that believers are called to struggle against.
“10 G. Alston: “one problem with party wide opposition to gays is the twin perception of intolerance and being out of touch with science.” Good thoughts indeed.” But not exactly accurate thoughts. How will the Democratic Party deal with its intolerance of gay marriage? After all, Proposition 8 would never had passed with only Republican support. If it hadn’t been for the overwhelming voter turn-out from Democrats, Prop. 8 would’ve never had passed. If the courts and the “elightened” Democratic voters are convinced by “science” and the perception of “intolerance,” why are they so reluctant to move “forward?”
Most people around the nation who have commented on this issue over the years have made an assumption. Both sides of this issue are operating under the same assumption.
Can anyone guess what that assumption is?
> You may not be secular, but the state certainly is.
Just so you’re clear on what I’m saying: this is not about forcing homosexuals to conform to my view, but about forcing me and others who feel the way I do to accept homosexuality as the valid basis of a marriage.
So, what you’re saying, in effect, is that their desire to feel accepted is more important than my desire to practice my religion, and that it is worth spending state power to make that happen.
I should have added: my right to worship is Constitutionally protected. Where in the Constitution is the right of gays to have their lifestyle validated specified?
rf
“I should have added: my right to worship is Constitutionally protected. Where in the Constitution is the right of gays to have their lifestyle validated specified?”
again……….. homosexuality is deemed legal. all legal inhabitants are entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness…………its called equal protection. there is no such thing as seperate but equal. even an imbecile is aware of benefits of being deemed married in this country. and there is no equality of benefits between marriages and civil unions…………in actuality civil unions are a slap in the face. its saying that “even though you are equal,and your bonding it is out of the same spirit as ours, namely mutual love, respect, devotion,affection,and trust it is not equal to ours. and even though homosexual bonded couples provide loving nurturing homes for raising children equal to heterosexual bonded couples it is still not equal. even though homosexuals have never been found wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals……..being they are not less a friend, father, doctor, teacher, attorney, psychologist, neighbor,brother, etc they are still not equal.”
why?
because the the heterosexual majority says so. in other words your equal protection will be determined by majority referendum rather than by the courts.
the legal reasoning given by the california supreme court had to very astutely avoided addressing this entire issue. in other words they werer forced to ignore the arguements presented them in order to give a politically compatible one.
they never said aye or nay whether the issue was about equal protection.
6. Typos_R_us:
Since a homosexual union CANNOT produce children, it makes no sense to legitimize what doesn’t and cannot exist.
By this logic all currently married couples that do not have children should be forced to divorce by the state!
I think the comment by Steele really brings out the stupidity of the republicans when it comes to social issues.
> again……….. homosexuality is deemed legal.
But homosexual marriage is not.
> all legal inhabitants are entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Even if, in their pursuit of happiness, they require me to accept their lifestyle? Now, my happiness is being infringed. Does my happiness count?
Today, it’s homosexuality. Tomorrow, what other behaviors will be constitutionally protected?
At least now we have arrived at the crux of the matter. It’s not okay for me to force my morality on them, but it’s perfectly okay for them to force their morality on me. With your approval.
> its called equal protection. there is no such thing as seperate but equal. even an imbecile is aware of benefits of being deemed married in this country.
I asked earlier, where in the Constitution is the idea is the idea of homosexual marriage defended as a right?
Look me in the eye and tell me the Framers of the Constitution intended this reading of their words.
And if original intent means nothing to you, it should. I thought this was a conservative web site. Sheesh.
> and there is no equality of benefits between marriages and civil unions
Fine: make them equal. No argument from me. If they were equal, would that be enough? I know the answer, but I just want to hear you say it, and expose it for the red herring that it is.
> in actuality civil unions are a slap in the face. its saying that “even though you are equal,and your bonding it is out of the same spirit as ours, namely mutual love, respect, devotion,affection,and trust it is not equal to ours.
So it is not their “rights”, but *my* attitude that needs to be changed. Is that what you’re saying?
And what part of the Constitution prohibits “slapping someone in the face”?
But of course, I too am being slapped in the face, by being told I must accept their union as valid. Does my face count, too?
And let’s regroup here: I don’t want to do anything to force, or prohibit, and action on the part of gays. Live and let live, I always say. But I’m the intolerant one, in your eyes.
And gays want to force me to grant approval for their relationship. I guess “live and let live” is not a big deal among self-styled libertarians, is it? Not when it’s a moral issue they happen to care about.
> I think the comment by Steele really brings out the stupidity of the republicans when it comes to social issues.
I have two arguments against it, but we’ve gone over one of them. How about the other one?
It goes like this: Marriage is an institution. It has been around in its present form for thousands of years.
When we change an institution, there is no way we can foresee all of the ramifications. Frankly, we don’t know if the institution of marriage can survive its redefinition by gays. And we don’t even know if the demise of the institution of marriage would permit our society to survive.
Anyone who writes computer code for a living can tell you how changing one tiny little basic thing about the way data is treated affects everything. It can mean the difference between having a functioning system, or a broken system.
Why should we assume that society is less complex than a computer system?
I would have thought this lecture on crumbling institutions would hardly need to be made today, as we watch many of them fall, one after the other, to the telegenic Mr. Obama. We have economists on this web site who will tell you in excruciating detail how this or that fall of an institution has serious repercussions for us on the road ahead.
But nobody places the institution of marriage on that pedestal — an institution much older than our beloved free market, or rule of law, or Constitution.
Charles Murray did some of his best research showing what happens when the family as a unit falls under the relentless guns of the liberal welfare state. I had never mistaken Murray for a religious dude, but he seemed to arrive empirically at precisely the place where a Christian would have, before the fact, predicted the problems would have manifested themselves.
You can take the view that morality is arbitrary, if you want. My guess is, if someone is stealing your money or banging your wife, your tune will change, but before that happens, we can be loftily magnanimous about societal change, and scolding towards the ones who want to be “old-fashioned”.
But it’s possible, it’s just possible, that morality is what it is because that’s what works, and that we can never prosper as a society if we walk against it — because it’s the way we were made, and the way our Creator ordained it.
In times like these, why tempt the fates? Am I the only one who thinks he’s living in Weimar Germany, and the maelstrom is due any minute?
Charvakan:
Typos_R-us is right. The economic purpose of marriage is to protect the interest of the father in the child, in particular, to ensure that the child whom a husband is committed to raise is his. If there is no father, there is no fatherhood to protect. That a child has not been born to a woman is not an indication that her husband’s interest is not protected: part of the husband’s interest is not to be parasitized.
Charvakan:
Typos_R_us is right. The economic purpose of marriage is to protect the father’s interest in the child, in particular, marriage ensures that a child that a husband is obligated to help raise is his. If there is no father, there is no fatherhood to protect. That a woman has not had a child does not mean that her husband’s interest is not protected: part of that interest is that he is not to be parasitized.
The assumption is that the local, state and federal governments have the Constitutional authority to decide what is or is not a ‘marriage.’
Guess what: Contrary to all of the current laws on the books and the legislation being proposed by both parties…the government doesn’t have that authority. When it does have that type of authority, you’ve abandoned freedom and have embraced tyranny.
Any additional argument by either side is based upon ideology and belief, not upon the rule of law as laid down by the state or federal Constitution. Such arguments are founded upon sophistry and not upon freedom or upon reason.
Shhh. If you argue for legal precedent or for case law, you’ve already embraced tyranny and have abandoned freedom…and have chosen to ignore The Constitution.
29: Opdei:
So explain to me how a heterosexual couple adopting a child and raising it is different from a gay couple adopting and raising a child?
27. Reformed Trombonist:
When we change an institution, there is no way we can foresee all of the ramifications. Frankly, we don’t know if the institution of marriage can survive its redefinition by gays. And we don’t even know if the demise of the institution of marriage would permit our society to survive.
Rational, intelligent people, especially those who don’t live their lives by rules written 1000s of years ago by primitive civilizations have no trouble in realizing that whether we allow gays to marry or not has no effect on heterosexual marriage. If you are a heterosexual what are you going to do if your neighbor marries someone of the same sex? Are you going to renounce your own marriage, or will you decide against getting married?
> because the the heterosexual majority says so. in other words your equal protection will be determined by majority referendum rather than by the courts.
Yep. When the people vote for something we like, it’s “Vox populi” all the way.
And when the people do the unthinkable and don’t follow the moral dictates of their betters, it’s, “We need the courts to enforce human rights.”
The only constant is that the side that wants to tear down the institution wins.
Marriage after all is just a contract between two people, and lets face you just have to live together for your partner to get rights to your assets in a breakup.
The purpose of marriage is to public declare to the world that 2 people have formed a union of love and to share what ever is in their lives with each other until the end of their days. In fact it can be read as for an eternity.
So as I say get over it people if two people want to get married it should not matter what race, age, religion, creed, beliefs or sex they are let me them declare their unity to the world and get all the protection of the laws as well.
South Australia has had same sex marriages since the 70′s (from memory) and the society their is still much the same if not more tolerant to diferent points of view
The proper solution to this problem is as follows.
1. Remove the government from as much involvement in marriages as possible. Effectively the only government involvement in marriages would be to register a couple as married. Getting married should be the choice of two people who if they say they are married and register with the government as married then they are married. How they get married is up to them.
2. To that end we would then eliminate all financial advantages that married couples have over single people. Financial consideration like tax rates, etc for married couples should be double those of individuals in all financially relavent situations.
That is all there is to it.
“I have asked gay marriage supporters: what if every right that married couples enjoy, that gay couples don’t — benefits at work, hospital visitations, etc. — were granted to gays, *except* that the relationship would not be called “marriage”. Would that be sufficient? Not one has answered yes. All have demanded marriage, the whole ball of wax.”
You didn’t ask me. If this psuedo-marriage afforded to same-gender couples had all the same rights and benefits as defined by all levels of government, including federal government, I’d take it. But then you have the problem of having to redo every application form in the country to add another check box. Single, married, ?.
The Institution of Marriage must be changed. It no longer works. People are not staying married til death do us part. People are not procreating children. This is done in test tubes. Marriage benefits business (property, taxes,the court system,etc.
God has been taken out of the schools. It is now a moment of silence.
In that case the Institution of Marriage should be changed to the Institution of Commitment.
Marriage as a religious institution is not at issue here, and even if it were, homosexuals have just as much right to marry as anyone else.
Civil marriage is the institution at issue, and equal protection will eventually overturn restrictions based on the gender of the applicants. It is simply a matter of time, as the younger generations have no qualms about extending marriage rights to all. The older generations will begin to die off in large numbers in about fifteen years, and quaint restrictions on marriage will go the way of miscegenation.
If you believe in marriage, and you don’t want to “share” with homosexuals, that’s too bad. It’s a word, and it’s an idea, and it’s free to all. You can deny them their civil rights for a time, but in the long run marriage will not survive as a civil institution unless all have equal rights to it. It’s the law of the land, at the most fundamental level, being a consequence of our Constitution.
It matters not if Steele can reframe the issue – the issue has already been practically decided, and the franchise will be open to all within the next few years. Demographics are key here.
Peace.
DS
The Institution of Marriage must be changed. It no longer works. People are not staying married til death do us part. People are not procreating children. This is done in test tubes. Marriage benefits business (property, taxes,insurance.the court system,etc. It used to be you needed a blood test to see if you were compatible to marry. Now all you need do for tax purposes is spend 24 hours with someone or present yourself to people as being married and it is recognized a married couple (Common Law)especially in dual property states.
God has been taken out of the schools. It is now a moment of silence. The bible says if you must get married marry if not remain single.
In that case the Institution of Marriage should be changed to the Institution of Commitment.
rt
Its interesting how you tip toe thru my comments as if they were a minefield, and like the California supreme court ignoring points that would invalidate their ruling, you ignoring points that would invalidate your position. Namely that homosexuals have never been found wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals, yet you will not honor that. And they have been deemed providers of a loving nurturing home for raising children equal to that of heterosexuals by the apa which has been also agreedwith by states that have allowed gay adoptions.
> again……….. homosexuality is deemed legal.
But homosexual marriage is not.
> all legal inhabitants are entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Even if, in their pursuit of happiness, they require me to accept their lifestyle? Now, my happiness is being infringed. Does my happiness count?
Today, it’s homosexuality. Tomorrow, what other behaviors will be constitutionally protected?
At least now we have arrived at the crux of the matter. It’s not okay for me to force my morality on them, but it’s perfectly okay for them to force their morality on me. With your approval.
One’s Right, like one’s right to pursuit happiness ends where it interferes with another’s right. That ‘s like saying my happiness ends when I am forced to do business with Hispanic people, therefore as a retailer I shouldn’t be forced to do business with them.
> its called equal protection. there is no such thing as seperate but equal. even an imbecile is aware of benefits of being deemed married in this country.
I asked earlier, where in the Constitution is the idea is the idea of homosexual marriage defended as a right?
It’s a benefit. And being a benefit afforded by society. it must be available to all people whose life style is deemed legal. One thing that disturbing is with that referendum’s unlike court hearings have no obligation to show any credible evidence why homosexuals should be denied marriage. Which is why the massachussetts supreme court ruling was never reversed.
Look me in the eye and tell me the Framers of the Constitution intended this reading of their words.
And if original intent means nothing to you, it should. I thought this was a conservative web site. Sheesh.
> and there is no equality of benefits between marriages and civil unions
Fine: make them equal. No argument from me. If they were equal, would that be enough? I know the answer, but I just want to hear you say it, and expose it for the red herring that it is.
Again there has never historically ever existed a condition where there was separate and also equal. By definition if both are equal why do they need to be separate.
> in actuality civil unions are a slap in the face. its saying that “even though you are equal,and your bonding it is out of the same spirit as ours, namely mutual love, respect, devotion,affection,and trust it is not equal to ours.
So it is not their “rights”, but *my* attitude that needs to be changed. Is that what you’re saying?
No im saying that you are saying they are not equal, own it. Then give credible evidence to show how they are not equal. Your attitude is something you have to deal with. Im trying to discuss the facts of the issue.
And what part of the Constitution prohibits “slapping someone in the face”?
But of course, I too am being slapped in the face, by being told I must accept their union as valid. Does my face count, too?
We are governed by the rule of law that says that all are to have equal rights. It’s the duty of the courts of the land to create a level playing field so that this is a reality. If you were jewish would you want your rights determined by a referendum of arabs. If you were one ethnic would you want your rights determined by the referendum of another ethnic? If you were conservative would you want your rights determined by a referendum of liberals? What we have here is the rights of homosexuals determined by a referendum of heterosexuals.
> Rational, intelligent people, especially those who don’t live their lives by rules written 1000s of years ago by primitive civilizations…
“Rational, intelligent people” should not require the centerpiece of their argument to consist of question-begging epithets. And some of those rules written long ago have stood the test of time. Let’s come back in four thousand years and see how well the makeshift morality of 21st Century America fared.
> …have no trouble in realizing that whether we allow gays to marry or not has no effect on heterosexual marriage.
You are asking people to set aside a definition of marriage that has existed for thousands of years. If you change the definition of something, you change that something.
> Marriage after all is just a contract between two people….
If marriage was just a contract between two people, then there would be no debate at all, and I wouldn’t have to elevate my quarrel with gay marriage to the public sphere. They would do what they do, I would do what I do, and we could just get along. If all it meant is that two homosexuals lived together and pledged their love and loyalty to each other, and I was not required to approve, then, heck, knock yourselves out, guys.
But marriage is, in fact, a social contract, involving the man and the woman, primarily, but also the granting of recognition and approval of the special relationship by society — that’s an obligation, just so you notice, placed on you, me, and everyone else. The demand is not for folks like me to tolerate their relationships — that is a red herring, we already tolerate their relationships. They demand our approval, and all I can do is to request, as strongly as possible, that they live the way they want, but please leave me out of it.
> Its interesting how you tip toe thru my comments as if they were a minefield, and like the California supreme court ignoring points that would invalidate their ruling, you ignoring points that would invalidate your position.
I respond to the points I think are more important, same as you. If you’re going to hint that I’m arguing in bad faith, please just say so and quit responding to my posts.
> It’s a benefit. And being a benefit afforded by society. it must be available to all people whose life style is deemed legal.
It is available. That’s where the definition of marriage comes in. They just can’t marry someone of the same sex. It’s not a question of equal protection under the law. It’s a question of whether we change the definition of an institution under the law.
> One’s Right, like one’s right to pursuit happiness ends where it interferes with another’s right. That ‘s like saying my happiness ends when I am forced to do business with Hispanic people, therefore as a retailer I shouldn’t be forced to do business with them.
You’re arguing that my right to deny someone my approval must be trumped when it interferes with someone’s right to receive my approval. Please explain how you arrived at the idea that someone has a right to behave in a certain way that I happen to disapprove of, and to receive my approval. Explain, please, why his right to receive approval is more fundamental than my right to withhold it.
Why is the conversation nearly always about adults and not fatherless children? The political class is an adults-only libertarian movement. Lesbian “marriages” hurt children, period.
Charvakan (Comment #31)
They aren’t different. The state has always taken a special interest in adoption precisely because the child does not share genes with its adoptive parent or parents. It is the interest of the child that the state is looking out for.
So I think, john r, at least that I grasp your reasoning.
1. Take the ages-old definition of marriage and propose that we change it fundamentally. What used to be seen, up until just a few short years ago, as a union between man and woman, is now between consenting adults, the sex of each participant being arbitrary.
2. Then, under the new definition, point out that now, the definition change automatically puts our society in arrears in terms of equal protection under the law, and that the way out of this condundrum is to grant the right to marry to any adult relationship.
If we give away the first point, then of course the second point follows.
I’m not giving away the first point. Your arguments of “equal protection” do not apply until your arguments that the definition should be changed have won out.
you dont seem to be able grasp what it means when something is deemed legal in a system that runs by the rule of law.
and that this whole thing about majority referendum is an end run around having to produce credible evidence to show why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. the point being……………….there is none.
you also appear to believe that antiquity is a litmus test for the truth. not so. 2000 years of modern society(marriage to one wife) approved of ethnic slavery for 1800 years, burned witches at the stake for 1700 years, denied the women the right to vote for 1900 years.
you also appear to be unaware the homosexuality has been deemed illegal in english society for 550 years, starting with a king henry the 8th (head of the church) (1500′s) instituted law that punished homosexual sex acts with hanging. it stayed on the books for 400 years, until the late 1800′s. english settlers in this country brought this cultual influence with them, and immediately made local laws making homosexuality illegal in this country. it has remained illegal in this country until the supreme court finally deemed it legal in the 1990′s.
back in england in the late 1800′s (no seperation between church and state….the queen is head of the church of england) biblical translators without any written explanantion transposed homosexual into parts of scripture, so that scripture appeared to say specifically say that homosexuality was a sin.(1timothy, 1corinthians) i say that because in modern society the culture is the church and the church is the culture. no one lives in a religous bubble or in a totally secular one.
#20 Vera: “how will the Democratic party deal with its intolerance of gay marriage?” The issue is more complex than that. Neither political party is a monolith. In California last November, religious right groups & the Mormon church poured millions into defeating Prop 8. They appealed to socially conservative Hispanics, among others, who generally vote Democratic.
#23 reformed trombonist: “where in the Constitution is the right of gays to have their lifestyle vindicated?” It’s not a lifestyle, it’s genetic. But for the record, suggest you visit Amendments III, IV, XIV. You may also want to check out the Supreme Court case from 1965: Griswold v. Connecticut. Point of interest: I’ve read that some religious right groups want to go after Griswold if they’re successful in overturning Roe v. Wade.
#26 reformed t.: “Today, it’s homosexuality. Tomorrow, what other behaviors will be constitutionally protected?” Again, it’s not a behavior.
#27 reformed t.: “because it’s the way we were made, and the way our Creator ordained it.” Equal rights for gays should not be a religious issue, but some mistakenly try to make it so. Didn’t your Creator also create humans who just happen to be gay?
#39 Iluvia: “God has been taken out of the schools. It is now a moment of silence.” And rightfully so. Which god would be prayed to (Hindus have millions); and who would write the prayers? Prayer in public schools was never a good idea. Parents should teach religion to their children. One other point: one does not have to be a theist to be a conservative.
”
So I think, john r, at least that I grasp your reasoning.
1. Take the ages-old definition of marriage and propose that we change it fundamentally. What used to be seen, up until just a few short years ago, as a union between man and woman, is now between consenting adults, the sex of each participant being arbitrary.
2. Then, under the new definition, point out that now, the definition change automatically puts our society in arrears in terms of equal protection under the law, and that the way out of this condundrum is to grant the right to marry to any adult relationship.
If we give away the first point, then of course the second point follows.
I’m not giving away the first point. Your arguments of “equal protection” do not apply until your arguments that the definition should be changed have won out.”
no, you grant homosexuals the right to marry in that their human bonding is identical in mutual devotion, affection, love , trust, commitment, and respect is to that of heterosexuals. do you see legal homosexual marriages in massacussetts trending toward the divorce percentages of those heterosexual marriage performed during the same time.
and yopu grant it because homosexuals have never been found wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals.
the rule of law demands equal rights and benefits for those persons deemed equally legal.
polygamy or any other issue related to marriage will fall or stand based on its own merit.
fears and anxieties about institution offer no evidence as to why homosexuals should be denied marriage. it is only evident of a neurotic society that because of its neurosis is unable to engage in
a discussion about this issue with objective reason.
> you dont seem to be able grasp what it means when something is deemed legal in a system that runs by the rule of law.
It is not deemed legal. That’s the question, and you are begging it. The debate is about whether it ought to *become* legal. I’m referring to the “marriage” part of it.
And show me anything in the Constitution that requires that we as a nation must officially recognize and respect any type of relationship, whether already legal or not, that human beings can dream up.
> and that this whole thing about majority referendum is an end run around having to produce credible evidence to show why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. the point being……………….there is none.
“Majority referendum?” Not my argument. But since we’re talking about changing the status quo on the definition of marriage, it’s for you to show evidence, not me.
> you also appear to believe that antiquity is a litmus test for the truth. not so. 2000 years of modern society(marriage to one wife) approved of ethnic slavery for 1800 years, burned witches at the stake for 1700 years, denied the women the right to vote for 1900 years.
And in the modern world, we have abortion, which puts us right back to the child sacrifices done by Canaanites in the worship of Baal. The more things change, the more they stay the same, it would appear. I don’t know what your standard of “truth” or “morals” is. Mine is clearly the Bible, and that makes it an easy target for some. But something has to be the authority. What’s yours? Where is your concept of the “truth” written down? Is it tradition? Then I win. Plebiscite? Then I haven’t lost yet. “Might makes right?” Time will tell. Is it whatever you “feel” is right? Will your feelings be around for 4,000 years?
> you also appear to be unaware the homosexuality has been deemed illegal in english society for 550 years, starting with a king henry the 8th (head of the church) (1500’s) instituted law that punished homosexual sex acts with hanging.
It used to be illegal to be a Catholic, or to read the Bible, and all other sorts of things. Since I’m not advocating that we hang homosexuals, King Henry VIII can defend himself.
> english settlers in this country brought this cultual influence with them, and immediately made local laws making homosexuality illegal in this country. it has remained illegal in this country until the supreme court finally deemed it legal in the 1990’s.
So how does it work, with respect to moral standards? Was criminalizing homosexuality always wrong, and now we have the correct position? Was it always right, and now we don’t have the correct position? Or was it right to make it illegal until 1990, because the courts in those days said so, and now it is right to make it legal, because the courts in our day say so?
Or is there one truth, and we need to seek it daily in the word of the Lord? Perhaps you reject that, but it’s hard to see how the alternate view — that moral standards are simply at the whim of power and fashion — is any improvement.
> the queen is head of the church of england) biblical translators without any written explanantion transposed homosexual into parts of scripture
Paul wrote what he wrote long before the Queen approved or disapproved. You are free to argue I should ignore what Paul wrote, but there is no disputing what he wrote.
> i say that because in modern society the culture is the church and the church is the culture. no one lives in a religous bubble or in a totally secular one.
You can’t get away from the culture all the time, but if you want to adhere to the Word, you have to try. It only means something if it’s viewed objectively, which means it will often say things that we don’t like. The question becomes, is it on the scriptures to get right with us, or on us to get right with the scriptures?
And show me anything in the Constitution that requires that we as a nation must officially recognize and respect any type of relationship, whether already legal or not, that human beings can dream up.
i keep telling you its a benefit. the relationship maintains its essence whether it is recognized or not. what is the difference between denying marriage to homosexuals and allowing it to anyone who doesnt have a uterus or testies or from a couple who is without both? is that any expression of sexual intimacy is only valid between opposite genders?
im so glad that you brought up scripture. i was wondering what was the source for your taking your position. the only problem with your source is that scripture never said homosexuality was a sin. it has always been man who said scripture did by assigning meaning to certain verses in spite of their words.
no one….and i mean no one has ever been able to explain how the words of lev, gen, rom, 1cor, 1tim, and matt19 say that homosexuality is a sin.
and saying this is clear or that is clear, or repeating the verses several times expains nothing.
conversely parables about a good tree bearing good fruit, jesus’s words that we would recognize them by their fruit………..fruit of the spirit. ithess 5:21 test everything , keep the good, john’s description of the method of testing that all believer’s are to pursue “that which we have heard, which we have looked at, which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have touched” in the fellowship of walking in the light(1john1)(the same test that john pursued to determine that jesus was the christ)says uneqivocally that affirming, supporting, and celebrating homosexuality in the same way we do heterosexuality is of christ, and that anything that comes against this is not.
#50 — Or was it right to make it illegal until 1990, because the courts in those days said so, and now it is right to make it legal, because the courts in our day say so?
Law is fluid and accomodates scientific change. If a law says X is legal for 150 years and then advances in science show that X is harmful, the law changes. Lead paint is an example. There are plenty of others.
Current understanding of the gay phenomenon is that it’s not behavioural but physiological. Gays find their own gender attractive; this isn’t a learned behaviour. It’s interesting to talk to a gay teenager. Usually they’re horrified. They know what people like you think. They know that their families will disown them. They know.
Arguments using tradition in this case are not acceptable because traditions were based on poor understandings. Prior law for instance punished outward gay behaviours and did nothing to address the fact that the gay was still gay, just not showing it. What you refer to as morals isn’t about morals at all, just behaviours. Falling in love (gays do this) should never be considered immoral.
There’s some work being done by Greg Cochran (evolutionary specialist) who suggests that the phenomenon is caused by a biological agent (a germ if you will.) It’s interesting reading. If he’s right — and given his track record there’s a good chance that he is — then this proves that being gay is and has been physiological all along. It also suggests that a “cure” of sorts or even an infant vaccine is possible.
This of course is usually met with mixed feelings by the more literalist christians. If true and the bible advocates treating gays poorly, it suggests that something is amiss — wouldn’t god know being gay is physiological? As such I think that the posts above from the christian guy suggesting that god knows and accepts all seems more realistic: there’s no reason that science and belief should collide; no reason updated understanding of our world should challenge belief.
“6. Typos_R_us:
Since a homosexual union CANNOT produce children, it makes no sense to legitimize what doesn’t and cannot exist.
By this logic all currently married couples that do not have children should be forced to divorce by the state!”
What University did you take your logic courses at?
Hetrosexual couples that don’t have children are still mostly capable of having children. Medical science has helped a lot. Homosexuals cannot have children. If medical science gets to the point where homosexuals can have children, then they won’t be homosexuals.
The issue really is about choices. Gays CHOSE to have a dick stuck in their anus. Arsonists CHOSE to set things on fire. Shoplifters CHOSE to slid things into their pocket and try to sneak out without paying. Torturers CHOSE to inflict pain on others.
All these deviants CHOSE to perform their anti-social acts because they enjoy those acts and find pleasure in them. If homosexual acts are ok, Why not arson? Why not child molestation? Why not auto theft? Why not torture? The issue is a lack of self control.
NONE of this has anything to do with civil rights. That is the big lie the Gay activists are selling. From the poll results, nobody is buying. Blacks don’t have a choice about being black, no more then whites about being white or Jews about being Jews, females about being female, etc. etc.
Homosexuals DO have a choice. As do arsonists. Try this;
The next time you go to put your buddies dick in your mouth, just say NO.
given the number of homosexual couples compared to the number of heterosexual couples and given the the number of heterosexual couples that practice some form of anal stimulation including penetration there are probably more heterosexual couples practicing anal sex than homosexual.
the anus is an erroganous zone(wikipedia) and anal orgasms are possible. in fact some women have found that they had greater intensity in anal orgasms compared to vaginal orgasms. i find it interesting that there has never been anything spoken from the pulpit decrying any practice of anal sex among heterosexual married couples.
typos is the fact that the anus is an errogenous zone mean that god created a certain part of the body that believers are called to not receive any sexual pleasure from, according to the law? but paul says that under the new covenant we are not under the law. the tearing of the curtain identified that we no longer have a relationship to god thru regulation as in deut 28, but instead directly to the one lives in each believer.
icor6:12″Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything.
@53. Typos_R_us:
Arson is a crime – it has a victim. Likewise child molestation, auto theft and torture. Your comparison is not even sufficiently useful to be laughable. I would suggest not making disparaging comments about the logic courses completed by other commenters.
This has nothing to do with self-control. It has everything to do with the law, and the nature of our secular institutions. Religious belief does not and cannot trump the protections afforded by our secular Constitution.
There is nothing “anti-social” about homosexuality – in fact, homosexual marriage is a pretty plain example of a social construct that is based on homosexuality, and intended to foster stable social relationships.
Your “choice” to be a homophobe is your own, and you are entitled to it – but you can’t force the rest of us to endorse your homophobia by compromising the ideals on which this nation was founded. Equal protection is for everyone, not just the folks whose sexual partners you approve of. Moreover, homosexuals can have children, and do. The child is not biologically descended from both parents, but that is true in many heterosexual relationships as well.
Ultimately your objection comes down to nothing but jealously. You simply think that other people being happy is wrong. That is anti-social. Live and let live, my friend.
Peace.
DS
@ John R
The whole basis of your argument is “there is no separate but equal”. You are right when it comes to a protected class i.e. sex, race, national origin, etc. Unfortunately for your argument, sexual orientation is not a protected class, therefore it is not inherently unconstitutional for the government to discriminate (based on a non suspect class).
Bottom line, if the government is in the business of certifying social contracts, i.e. marriage, they can define the prerequisites of that contract to be whatever they want, as long as it does not target a suspect class, or infringe upon specific constitutional rights.
I am not religious and I do not buy the argument that allowing gays to marry infringes upon someone else’s right to practice their own religion, so reformed trombonist’s argument does not hold water either, however, for whatever reason, be it tradition, religion or whim, the majority has the right to define marriage based on whatever morality they subscribe to as long as it does not target a suspect class. This is the reason the California Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8.
On a personal note, as a traditionalist I believe civil unions are a fair option.
> i keep telling you its a benefit.
I searched the U.S. Constitution for the word, “benefit.” Zero hits. What word, or phrase, is the synonym that the Founding Fathers used? Or perhaps it would save time if you would simply indicate, please, the part of the Constitution that you think requires us to confer marriage to homosexual unions, and why?
> the relationship maintains its essence whether it is recognized or not.
I’ve been saying all along that a gay doesn’t need anyone’s approval to live as he likes. If that “maintains its essence”, then what are we arguing about?
> what is the difference between denying marriage to homosexuals and allowing it to anyone who doesnt have a uterus or testies or from a couple who is without both?
Are we talking about people who once had testicles, or a uterus?
> Is that any expression of sexual intimacy is only valid between opposite genders?
I don’t know what that has to do with the issue. I’m not arguing that the law should outlaw sexual intimacy between two consenting adults, only that I should not be forced to approve of their relationship if it runs against my faith. That would also include adultery and non-marital sex. I may not approve, but that doesn’t mean I think the law ought to intervene.
> im so glad that you brought up scripture. i was wondering what was the source for your taking your position. the only problem with your source is that scripture never said homosexuality was a sin.
“Never” is quite a long time, isn’t it? Since you asked… Please see Leviticus 18:22
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=18&verse=22&version=49&context=verse
…and Romans 1, particularly verses 25-27.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201&version=31
Fortunately for gays, this is the Bible, and not the Constitution. I understand that, really, I do. But the Constitution protects me, too. It says I have the freedom to worship in a manner of my own choosing. So, when you come to me and tell me I am *required* to grant approval to a relationship that’s sinful by the standards of my religion, I need to see more than that.
> conversely parables about a good tree bearing good fruit… that affirming, supporting, and celebrating homosexuality in the same way we do heterosexuality is of christ, and that anything that comes against this is not.
Not only are you not seeing the words that are there, but you’re seeing words that are not there. John doesn’t say word one about celebrating homosexuality.
lev…………. not all the prohibitions of themselves are sins. and there are other lev directives particularly about slavery under the new covenant are intolerable evils.
case and point about prohibitions: under the new covenant household chores are not sins nor are household chores on the sabbath.
num 15: 32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.
i have interest in discussing what you should not accept, that is totally your independent decision.
as i said before refering to a scripture does not explain how the words of that scripture say it is a sin.
reedit: i have no interest………..
> not all the prohibitions of themselves are sins.
john r, your capacity to read what you want, instead of what is written, is breathtaking.
> Current understanding of the gay phenomenon is that it’s not behavioural but physiological. Gays find their own gender attractive; this isn’t a learned behaviour. It’s interesting to talk to a gay teenager. Usually they’re horrified. They know what people like you think. They know that their families will disown them. They know.
In order to love someone, we must always tell them pleasant, patronizing, fluffy things, instead of hard truths. Please.
If science is your religious authority, the law of this land permits you to observe that faith, but does not require me to accept it. One advantage the Bible has over science is that it’s constant, like our Lord. If I worshiped science, I might get tired of all the about-faces. Sixty years ago, scientists wrote on their clipboards while malnourished Jews were thrown naked into snowbanks and their death by freezing recorded and studied. Science is value-free, and in any event we are warned not to trust in the wisdom of man.
not even going to attempt, are you at all familiar with the words?
“Namely that homosexuals have never been found wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals, yet you will not honor that.”
Strawman argument. Why should anyone honor it? And off the top of my head, I would suggest htat producing children might be an area homosexuals are found wanting in.
“the arguement is that marriage is a positive in this culture. homosexuality has been deemed legal.”
That is what needs to be changed, NOT Marriage laws.
Homosexuality is NOT a civil rights issue, but a matter of anti-social behavior. Don’t think so?
Then ‘splain to me Lucy why this;
http://www.adherents.com/misc/hsk.html
The author tries the old, “move along, nothing happening here’ ploy, but it isn’t very well done. The statistics he uses fly against the statements he makes.
{snipped}
“Although the proportion of serial killers who are known to have had homosexual experience is high (over 43%)”
“Given that less than 2% of adults are homosexuals (plus 1 to 2% who are bisexual), there would not need to be very many homosexuals among the total number of serial killers for them to be over-represented. But with such small overall numbers, and with no universally agreed upon definition of a homosexual,”
How bogus!
Why needs to be done here is some research. Why does 2% of the population provide 43% of the serial killers? Is there a relationship between recruitment (remember, homosexuals don’t procreate) and serial killers?
Homosexuality has been illegal for thousands of years. Why is that do you suppose? Why should it be legal?
Civil rights pertain to those with no choice. Being born black, female, Jewish or blond should not be a reason for discrimination. Anti-social behiavior should be.
So ‘splain to me again Lucy why homosexuality should be treated under the law any differently then arson, car theft, murder, rape, child molestation, voting democratic (joke) or the host of other anti-social acts people do because they enjoy doing them.
If homosexuality is a civil right, why isn’t beating people up? Some of us enjoy violence more then sex. Don’t we have civil rights also?
G. Alston, you are dead wrong. Gay rights will never reach the point where homosexuality is tolerated. Look at what happens every time the issue is brought to a vote.
The best possible policy for gays is “Don’t ask, don’t tell”. Militant gays refuse to settle for that so they will keep pushing and pushing until the other 98% of the population pushes back. You won’t like that.
Don’t ask don’t tell will look like paradise when they come for you.
“It is simply a matter of time, as the younger generations have no qualms about extending marriage rights to all. The older generations will begin to die off in large numbers in about fifteen years, and quaint restrictions on marriage will go the way of miscegenation.”
Evidence please! This sounds like a pipe dream to me. I say that because almost every conservative posting here was a liberal in their youth. The Conservatives of 2030 are liberals today. This is one of those nasty little facts that has been around as long as the human race. Was it Churchill or Johnson that said’ a young man who isn’t liberal has no heart, an old man that isn’t conservative has no brain.’ Think about it. In 20 years if you get your way, homosexuals will be the conservatives. The youth will want to put all those nasty old, disease ridden homos away. That will be the ‘liberal’ position.
If your dream is to come true, it will have to be done thru the ballot box, since the ONLY legal way to apply civil rights to homosexuals is with a Constitutional amendment.
So far gays have lost EVERY time the issue has been brought to a vote.
on a practical level, you are assuming America survives the next few years. That is a fairly risky assumption, considering we now have a man in the Oval office that is NOT a natural born American citizen, a fact which makes civil war inevitable. When America falls, Europe will too. America is the prop that holds Europe up. When we are gone, Europe won’t last 10 years. Either the Asians or the Muslims will take over. Both of those civilizations are noted for how well the treat homosexuals. NOT.
Maggie Gallagher gets it:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDQwMGU5ZjgwNmFiODcxZDgyNTAxYjVmYzY2ZjViOTY=
Money graf:
> Gallagher: “And a further step in moral reasoning is needed to elevate the right to do what one wishes in private into a right to enter a gay marriage. Gay marriage as an equality right thus represents a strange new hybrid — it’s the right to act in a certain way, to have the state and other institutions bless one’s actions, and to punish people (the way we punish bigots) for expressing disagreement with those actions. It is a totally novel equality right, an equality right on steroids.”
> I am not religious and I do not buy the argument that allowing gays to marry infringes upon someone else’s right to practice their own religion, so reformed trombonist’s argument does not hold water either, however, for whatever reason, be it tradition, religion or whim, the majority has the right to define marriage based on whatever morality they subscribe to as long as it does not target a suspect class.
So, cannedjam, a group of people can behave in a certain way, and the majority has the right to force approval of said behavior out of another group who would disapprove if allowed to do so?
It’s not enough they can do whatever they want? The rest of us need to be grabbed by the scruff of the neck, have our noses rubbed in it, smacked with a newspaper, and forced to approve?
If gays want to live a certain way, why is that not enough? Why must those who disapprove be forced to approve?
typos
“Although the proportion of serial killers who are known to have had homosexual experience is high (over 43%)”
narth is a pseudo scientific organization formed out of bias to spread bias. there is not one scintilla about it that is scientific. where do you think it gets its money?
anyone is entitled to believe whatever they chose without recrimination. however whether what they believe is of christ or is supported by the rule of law is another matter.
john r, your capacity to read what you want, instead of what is written, is breathtaking.
so you are saying that lev directing the jews to take ethnic slaves to hold as capital to give as inheritance to their children. and the laws about housework on the sabbath whose violation was stoning were mere isolated instances and the bulk of lev show lead believers in their daily faith.
Listen trombone, I think your injection of religious justifications for not allowing gay marriage and your linking of homosexual activity with sin is a disservice to the argument.
I believe the majority has the right to define marriage in any way they want as long as it does not infringe on a protected class of people. Many may argue homosexuality should be a protected class; I would not make that argument. So I agree with you that the minority should not be allowed to force their agenda on the majority. However, you take it a step further by insinuating that even if the majority decided in favor of gay marriage your rights would be infringed as a Christian. That logic is faulty and broken.
You may think homosexuality is a sin, but that really has no place in this argument. All you simply have to say is, “the majority rules, and we have ruled to not allow homosexual marriage, and as the constitution is written we have the right to do that”. End of story, all the other stuff is distractive and off-putting.
traditional marriage has the highest chance of producing the next stable, productive generation of citizens to tax, The State always has to play the averages and statics prove that children raised in traditional households generally, do better in life than children raised in non-tradtional households.
it’s not about religion, it’s very practical and logical, scientific even… i’m just putting Science Back in it’s Rightful Place, y’all
> Listen trombone, I think your injection of religious justifications for not allowing gay marriage and your linking of homosexual activity with sin is a disservice to the argument.
I haven’t been justifying my opposition to gay marriage with religious objections. My objections are legal and constitutional: I don’t wish to be forced to approve of something I don’t to approve of.
Now, my *reasons* for not wanting this are based on my conscience, and my conscience is instructed by my religious beliefs, but my arguments are much simpler than that: there is nothing in the Constitution requiring anybody to give approval of gay marriage, and my practice of religion is explicitly protected by the First Amendment.
Do you not bring ideas of what is good to these discussions, to the polls, to your political contributions, to any and all of your participation in public life?
Of course you do. You are as much a moralist as I am, in your own way. Why should you worry about whether my viewpoint does a “disservice” to the argument, unless you thought it was doing harm — and if you think something is doing harm, then you must prefer doing good. And now the truth is out: if you’re talking about “the good”, you are expressing a moral vision.
Same as me.
> I believe the majority has the right to define marriage in any way they want as long as it does not infringe on a protected class of people.
At the moment, it is not the majority I am concerned about. Or did you not hear about the latest Gallup poll on the subject?
But that’s interesting. What do you mean by “protected class of people”? Are we all not supposed to be the same under the law?
> However, you take it a step further by insinuating that even if the majority decided in favor of gay marriage your rights would be infringed as a Christian. That logic is faulty and broken.
I believe it would be, yes, but let’s talk about why you think it wouldn’t be. What other behaviors do you think the government ought to be able to force everyone to approve of?
If the majority decided to force everyone to approve of reading the Bible, do you think that would be okay? It’s the majority, after all — vox populi, and the whole bit. What’s the harm, after all? Reading the Bible is good, isn’t it, you don’t have to read it yourself, after all. Expands horizons and such. And what if there were a special gene that makes some people believe the Bible, why they just can’t help the way they are. And consenting adults who love to read the Bible, well, it’s good we don’t persecute them anymore, but they just can’t be happy until everyone approves of what they’re doing.
You don’t think that’s a good thing? Then tell me, why do you hate Bible-readers so much? What made you such a Bible-phobe?
But, more seriously, I was asked earlier why I thought it was a sin, and I explained. If you find it off-putting, why, it breaks my heart, but I can see no shortage of moralizing from your own soapbox. Sorry if you think I’m working your side of the street.
I say let them marry- then stick them with the marriage penalty tax. They’ll wish they had not done it.
“I was asked earlier why I thought it was a sin, and I explained.”
what have you explained ? you think its a sin because the “bible says ” so how do you pick and choose what laws to follow in lev? what are the words in romans 1 that say it is a sin? here again you appear to assign certain undertstandings to scripture but are unable to explain them. that sounds more more like something cultural passed down generationally, culminating with the understanding that “all good christians believe that it is a sin”. this makes your understanding cultural rather than scriptural.
again i am not challenging your belief, which you are definitely entitled to. my challenge is that in regards to the new covenant it is not supported by scripture.
yes there was a prohibition under the old covenant. but this of itself does not say it is a sin. there were many prohibtions under the old(that were deemed abominable(kjv)) that are acceptable under the new.”what is called old will become obsolete and soon pass away.” hebrews 8
under the new covenant, where we do not have a relationship to god thru regulation, there is nothing of the new covenant that does anything other than support, affirm, and celebrate homosexuality in the same way as with heterosexuality.
> again i am not challenging your belief, which you are definitely entitled to. my challenge is that in regards to the new covenant it is not supported by scripture.
Please re-read Romans 1.
@73. Reformed Trombonist:
Really? From your first comment on this thread:
There is no restriction on the rights of Christians and others who are opposed for “moral or traditional concerns”. Now how do you claim that this is not a religious objection? Why would it be important that the objections come from Christians if religion is not the basis?
There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for restricting others rights because you disagree with them. Gays have just as much right as you do to practice religion as they please – but neither party has a right to restrict the practices of the other. If marriage is sanctioned by the state, it must be freely available to all on equal terms.
When you object to homosexuals enjoying the rights of marriage, whatever reasoning you employ can be turned back on heterosexual marriage. Your “reasons” are nothing but warmed-over bigotry against homosexuals. Your own morality does not define the rights of your countrymen, despite your evangelical impulses. Nobody is forcing you to approve of homosexuals marriages, any more than you are forced to approve of heterosexual marriages.
Quite frankly, it is not your business to tell any consenting adults they can’t marry.
I do like your point on reading the bible. We all currently support the reading of the bible by granting tax exempt status to religious groups. The wisdom of our Constitution requires that we also support the reading of the koran, the satanic bible and any other religious text equally. I would be quite happy to see the state get out of the business of promoting religion in this way, but I’m not going to try to take away your bible just because my morality is different from yours.
Apparently you can’t see that you are the one who “just can’t be happy until everyone approves of what they’re doing”. You want the state to get on board and approve your bigoted worldview, and to force the rest of us to join you. Why should everyone (or anyone) approve of what you are doing? By my reading of the bible, your actions are hypocritical and sinful – and you should give up the hateful diatribe and try studying the golden rule.
Unless you want to lose the right to marry the person you love, you ought to allow others that same right.
Peace.
DS
Both Jerry Brown (for homosexual “marriage”) and Michael Steele (against homosexual “marriage”) are products of seminaries. And extremely poor products at that. Neither one can make a strong case for their point of view.
There is marriage and “marriage”. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.
The inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is a defensive right: the State has no authority in interfering in your pursuit. Nor a private party can interfere. This right is not offensive: one has no right to force the State to give its stamp of approval to your pursuit. Proper civil rights are defensive.
Marriage is not a proper civil right, despite the decision of some mal-educated judges. Not all heterosexual couple can marry. Cohabitation is a civil right: all heterosexual couples can cohabit. Since child’s rights are at the issue of marriage, marriage should be made more difficult, not easier, to obtain. Since at least some of the benefits of marriage entail spending my taxes, the taxpayers (i.e. society at large) have a say in the matter of marriage.
53. Typos_R_us:
Judging by your comment I certainly did not take logic in the same university that you did …
I think this comment says it call. The opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with state rights, definition of marriage etc. It is purely driven by ignorance and bigotry mixed in with religious nonsense.
to put it another way the rule of law says that congress will make laws supporting any religion. the fact that your distain is based on religion automatically excludes it from any concern, caring, or support of congress.
i know the words of romans1……………that’s my point.
worshipping and serving the created refers to worshipping and serving powers and principalities. those who christ said we were to struggle against.
being given over to means being given over a spirit that serves them. in this case it is shame based lust.(niv) the bonding of homosexuals is not based on shamebased lust but instead mutual love, devotion, affection,trust and respect, for a shared committed life together the same as with heterosexuals.
where there is lust the only commitment is to satiating the lust(not to another person) any people involved are merely mechanisms to satiate the lust.
where there is inner shame then there is defilement of the essence of what was created thru the spirit of christ(john1. and where there is shame the due penalty is self hatred and self loathing. none of any of this resembles being homosexual. if you valued the witness of 1john1 you would know this. “that which we have heard, which we have looked at and seen with our eyes and our hands have touched”in the “fellowship of walking in the light”
homosexuals do not have women, and why do their women feel compelled to be given over to the same shame based lust.
natural………..has to do with the natural inclination as created by god. the natural inclination of homosexuals is to be attracted to the same sex 24/7 since their first sexual memory. by what reasoning is it good for someone to be celibate because they are gay, or to force themselves to bond with someone they are not attracted to, when in bonding to the one they are attracted to, their believing homosexual married union is filled with the fruit of the spirit in the same way as a believing heterosexual married union.
if you say by regulation,the tearing of the curtain during the crucifixion, indicated that we longer have a relationship to god thru regulation as in deut 28, but instead directly to the one who lives in each believer.
“Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything.”1cor 6:12
if you feel to be compelled to be under and to be led by the law, rather than to be led by and to serve of the spirit(romans) then you are chosing to remain still grounded in the old covenant( will become obsolete and soon pass away)heb8.
according to scripture this is not of christ.
romans one is not about homosexuality being a sin but instead about the basis of all sin(worshipping and serving powers and principalities is one of four aspects of this basis) paul is explaining why all need a savior and cannot save themselves.
romans 2:1 says that “you who judge are guilty of the same things” because in sinning we are doing this kind of worshipping and serving, and we all sin.
reedit congress will NOT make…………………………
IM GONG TO HAV TO DO BETER JOB OF DITTING, MY APOLOGIES
> RT: “I haven’t been justifying my opposition to gay marriage with religious objections. My objections are legal and constitutional: I don’t wish to be forced to approve of something I don’t to approve of.”
> David S.: “Really?”
Yes, really.
Hypothetical: Let’s say that you were to get a job with a company whose owner/CEO famously supports a cause (social, religious, political — doesn’t matter, pick one) that you agree very strongly with. Let’s also say you are “strongly encouraged” to attend a rally for this cause, on your own time. But you don’t mind, since you’re all for it, and there’s free food and beer. Have your constitutional rights been violated? Depends on how you look at it.
Now: let’s change the hypothetical situation. Everything is the same, *except* the company supports a cause that you very strongly *disagree* with. *Now* have your constitutional rights been violated? Were you so intimidated that you attended the rally anyway? Or did you quietly refuse to attend, and the following week start receiving snarky remarks from your supervisor? Or did you speak out about your right not to attend, and the next thing you know, why, your evaluation comes in, tsk tsk, not a very good one?
Now: do you have a grievance? Were you being pressured into supporting a cause you don’t believe in? Does the First Amendment protect you from that, on the grounds that freedom of speech means also means freedom to *not* support something you disagree with?
All that, to say this: is your justification for filing a lawsuit because your First Amendment rights have been violated? Or because you disagree with the company’s stance on the issue that offends you?
I submit that it’s linguistically tricky, but the way I would phrase the situation is this: 1) Your *justification*, or grounds, for the lawsuit is legal, and your objection is based on the First Amendment; 2) the *reason* it became an issue in the first place is because you disagreed with the company’s stance on the offending issue, however you arrived at that position (e.g., personal philosophy, religious convictions, etc.).
Now, all we do is transpose my position into yours: 1) The *justification* for my objection would be that the Constitution does not require anyone to recognize gay marriage, and that therefore the requirement to grant approval of it would violate my First Amendment rights; 2) the *reason* it’s an issue with me is because I disagree with the policy, and I arrived at my position because of my religious beliefs.
And if I arrive at my positions based on religious beliefs, it’s just as valid as you arriving at yours through other beliefs. Neither of us ought to expect the law or the Constitution to adhere to our personal beliefs like a well-tailored suit, but there is nothing wrong with seeking protection under the Constitution in those cases where it seems congruent with the intent of the Framers and to the extent that the meaning of the Constitution permits.
In actuality, I realize there’s more to it that that. There is that all-but-forgotten Tenth Amendment (“rights falling to the states and the people”). And then there’s the courts. So far, whenever the people have been given a chance to voice their opinion, it has been to object to gay marriage — but liberals aren’t too proud to use the courts to impose what they want based on a spurious reading of the Constitution. Do I think my First Amendment rights are absolute on this matter? Maybe not strong enough to overturn an individual state’s decision on the matter by plebiscite, but I would think strong enough to prevent a spurious reading of the U. S. Constitution by a head-up-the-butt judge.
Now, that was a lot of work. I hope I cleared it up, though. If I didn’t, I give up.
> There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for restricting others rights because you disagree with them.
David S., what I have been arguing now for about twenty posts is that opponents of gay marriage are *not* restricting gays. They are free to do whatever they want to do, but I ought to be free not to grant approval, particularly if the majority feels the way I do.
> Gays have just as much right as you do to practice religion as they please – but neither party has a right to restrict the practices of the other.
But you seem to be saying gays ought to be able to restrict my objections to their practices.
> If marriage is sanctioned by the state, it must be freely available to all on equal terms.
You mean, if the state changes the definition of marriage, the terms of that definition must be universally imposed on all.
> When you object to homosexuals enjoying the rights of marriage, whatever reasoning you employ can be turned back on heterosexual marriage. Your “reasons” are nothing but warmed-over bigotry against homosexuals.
It always comes down to name-calling, doesn’t it? To call it bigotry is simply to dismiss my religious objections. Sorry: I did not write the Bible, I’m just trying to interpret it. By your standards, I’m also bigoted against adulterers, fornicators, murderers, thieves, liars, hypocrites, drunks, gluttons, and a whole bunch of other things condemned in the Bible. So is it bigotry, or is is simply that there are certain actions I am bound by my beliefs to oppose? And then there is the whole thing about whether you’re helping someone by tolerating the things they do, or trying to point out that what they’re doing may be wrong. It seems to me that the supreme act of hatred would be indifference, and the “tolerance” that flows from that. It’s easy to be tolerant when you don’t care.
> Your own morality does not define the rights of your countrymen, despite your evangelical impulses.
I never said it did.
> Nobody is forcing you to approve of homosexuals marriages, any more than you are forced to approve of heterosexual marriages.
If the state sanctions the relationship, I will forced to approve, yes.
> Quite frankly, it is not your business to tell any consenting adults they can’t marry.
Quite frankly, it is my business to stick up for my right to withhold approval, and it is not your business to change a definition that has existed for thousands of years.
> I do like your point on reading the bible. We all currently support the reading of the bible by granting tax exempt status to religious groups.
We also grant tax exemptions to non-profit institutions, including some that are genuinely hostile to the Bible. E.g., the ACLU.
> The wisdom of our Constitution requires that we also support the reading of the koran, the satanic bible and any other religious text equally.
I don’t call that “support”, I call that tolerance.
> I would be quite happy to see the state get out of the business of promoting religion in this way,
Should they also get out of the business of promoting hostility to religion, too? (See: ACLU)
> but I’m not going to try to take away your bible just because my morality is different from yours.
I’m very grateful.
as with scripture, the words of law to you appear to have no meaning. congress will make no laws supporting any religion that would include beliefs associated with that religion.
the rule of law is to create a level playing field so that all have the same rights. if one is entitled to marry all are entitled to marry.
because homosexuality has been deemeed legal they are entitled to every single right held by heterosexuals without recrimination. that they are entitled to live their lives free from the prejudices that comes from religious beliefs………in the work place, in medical institutions, in their neighborhoods in their schools, public retail environments,etc.
this referendum is merely a delay tactic. eventually it will become public knowledge that homosexuals are not lacking in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals. and that they love no differently, they commit no differently. their desire to have children and to be devoted to them is not different,etc. the fact procreation may have to be handled differently does not change that fact. in truth devotion is the most important thing.
the upsetting thing is that source of the prejudice comes from believers, because of the cultural prejudice that has lived in their churches for so long. its evidenced by the fact that beliefs supporting this understanding are beyond discussing words in scripture, beyond rational thinking, beyond objective reason. as i said before belief is about personal identity.
when it becomes apparent that there is no difference, then the courts will be forced to deal with the issue of there being evidence that shows why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry as a rights issue.
right now the court are chosing not to challenge the referendum. that is only temporary.
> john r: as with scripture, the words of law to you appear to have no meaning. congress will make no laws supporting any religion that would include beliefs associated with that religion.
Words have no meaning to me? This, from the fellow who reads “perversion” and “shameful” as celebratory?
And if you’re going to cite the Constitution, why not quote it?
> “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Somehow, you forgot to include the “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” clause. I’m not asking the government to enforce my religion rules against homosexuals; I’m asking it to respect my religious beliefs and not to be forced into doing something my religious rules prohibit.
> the rule of law is to create a level playing field so that all have the same rights. if one is entitled to marry all are entitled to marry.
The rules are already the same for everyone. Everyone is free to marry. Just not someone from the same sex, for that would be changing the definition of marriage.
> because homosexuality has been deemeed legal they are entitled to every single right held by heterosexuals without recrimination. that they are entitled to live their lives free from the prejudices that comes from religious beliefs
What other behaviors are protected by civil rights law, in your opinion?
> the upsetting thing is that source of the prejudice comes from believers
You are not the authority for what right and wrong is, in the Christian church, john r. Neither am I. In my church, the Bible is the authority. You are simply upset that some folks take that authority seriously.
One of the unasked questions, in all this, by the way, is: did marriage develop arbitrarily? That is, when earlier man and earlier civilizations grappled with how to organize society, how did marriage come to be defined as man with woman, and not man with man or woman with woman? Was it completely arbitrary? Was it just circumstance that led to the man-woman thing? Could it have easily been the other way?
If so, your argument might make more sense. It was just an arbitrary arrangement, after all, so why not add a little more arbitrariness into the mix?
> ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
> john r: “in this case it is shame based lust.(niv) the bonding of homosexuals is not based on shamebased lust but instead mutual love, devotion, affection,trust and respect, for a shared committed life together the same as with heterosexuals.”
That must be why Paul used words that translate as “perversion” and “shameful”.
1thess5:21 test everything, keep the good. this includes understandings about scripture. what is more important what is in your head, or where the spirit of christ rests?
what is your test of romans 1. your understanding is that there is inner shame and lust(niv) in being homosexual. is this your 1john1 witness (“that which we have heard, which we have looked at, which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have touched”) in fellowship? that every person you have fellowshipped with who is gay, you witnessed inner lust and shame? i witness all the time. i see none. instead i see the fruit of the spirit gal5.
the definition of an institution does not determine individual rights. it is individual rights that determine the definition of an institution. rules about miscegnation, once defined marriage, but because they infringed on the rights of persons of different ethnics, the definition of marriage was changed from only those of the same ethnic, to anybody. now that anybody is going to be changed from only heterosexuals to any 2 consenting adults. and as to any future changes they will either stand or fall on their own merit.
john r, I don’t see any reason from what you’ve written to conclude that the scriptures are not saying what they appear to be saying.
You’re welcome to continue this discussion at my blog.
the human mind historically has been the source of some great achievements and also some horrible destruction. the later happening when a subject becomes undiscussable, because of what fear does to the human mind.
i have no idea where “my blog”or how to find it
@83. Reformed Trombonist:
Yes, you keep arguing this, but your premise is false on its face. You can object to gay marriage, but you can’t make it illegal based solely on your personal objections. That’s not how our government works.
No, I mean that if the state wishes to grant marriage licenses, it must grant them in accordance with the strictures of the Constitution.
Honestly, I don’t care who wrote it. Any religious text you like is yours to worship, but your religion does not write the laws of our nation. Interpretations vary. It’s not about name-calling – it’s about understanding the nature of our government. You can be bigoted against others, but unless they impose their will on you, you have no claim on them. You may think that worshipping Satan is wrong, but you have no right to interfere with a person who does so.
Not true. You can still personally decry homosexual marriage all you like. Your approval is not required for the state to issue a license for marriage.
Go ahead and keep your bible, but keep it to yourself.
Peace.
DS