Looking for a conservative point of view on gay marriage [Archive]

Peter Malcolm Jardine

09-12-2005, 09:46 PM

Homophobia is almost a generational issue. People of my daughters age (26) don't demonstrate anywhere near the discomfort around homosexuality that people of my generation do (46). The real issue is a moral one, and any rights granted to gays that seem over and above basic human rights (as in you can't beat them or kill them) seem to have opposition in some older folks.

Personally, I no longer see homosexuality as a perversion or a abnormality. That's somewhat different than what I was brought up to believe, although my parents have always been very tolerant in their beliefs. I think most of the arguments against gay marriage are bogey man style, that somehow granting consenting caring adults the right to a civil union under the law is going to destroy society and lead our children astray. That is, and always has been total bullshiet.

The liberal government in this country passed the legislation for gay marriage this summer, and the conservatives had a tough place politically. They had to oppose it, since their support, albeit a minority of Canadians, opposed it on the same grounds that some Americans oppose the issue. However, the polls taken before the introduction of the legislation showed an OVERWHELMING support for the bill, somewhere in the area of 70 to 80% of the population. Done deal, and I'm glad. Canadians fundamentally always saw it as a human rights issue, just as they do abortion. ;)

Katherine

09-12-2005, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by PatCox:
In my experience, women tend to be very tolerant of male homosexuals.

Yeah, because it gives us a guy who loves shopping as much as we do. tongue.gif

Paul Girouard

09-12-2005, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
Canadians fundamentally always saw it as a human rights issue, just as they do abortion. ;) [/QB]So if you don't have a voice , like a unborn baby , you have no rights? Not ever the basic right to live?

Sorry I have to disagree on this one.

[ 09-12-2005, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: Paul Girouard ]

Katherine

09-12-2005, 10:01 PM

Here we go again. :rolleyes: How long before SamF is off and running.

Peter Malcolm Jardine

09-12-2005, 10:10 PM

Don't hijack the thread Paul. This is about Gay marriage, I just mentioned how Canadians feel about abortion. If you don't like it, don't live here. ;)

PatCox

09-12-2005, 10:13 PM

Katherine, I just have to tell you about my coup this weekend. My wife and I went to Marshalls because you just have to cruise trough there every now and then, they screw up and stock something really good every now and then that the usual Marshalls shoppers don't appreciate and real good deals are to be found. (It also helps to dress preppy-traditional in an area where everyone else dresses guido-casino worker). I found a real nice pair of tassel loafers on the clearance rack for $29, great for work, and I was already ahead of the game. A few nice ties, a great striped dress shirt, I was in heaven.

So then on a whim I suggest to my wife we hit Macys because we have a business trip coming up and I was looking for a new sportcoat for the casual evening events. We don't have anywhere near here with any decent mens clothes, but I thought I'd take a shot.

So I find this Ralph Lauren houndstooth thats just gorgeous and exactly what I was looking for, the tag said $350, marked down to $199, and I thought that was a bargain, so I brought it up to pay, and they say to me "okay, thats $59.99. I didn't even notice that it was on a clearance rack marked at $74.99, with an additional 25% off with a coupon that they gave to me to make it $59.99.

Shopping Nirvana. I went back to that rack and bought the only other coat in my size, a $300 Nautica in navy and black check.

Then we went home and engaged in distinctly heterosexual activities. Best of both worlds.

PatCox

09-12-2005, 10:15 PM

Is an acorn an oaktree? Should logging restrictions apply to acorns? Just wondering.

[ 09-12-2005, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: PatCox ]

Noah

09-12-2005, 10:25 PM

Ya looked pretty good in that coat huh?

As K mentioned, this reminds me of a WhiteSnake Song...

An’ here I go again on my own
Goin’ down the only road I’ve ever known,
Like a drifter I was born to walk alone
An’ I’ve made up my mind
I ain’t wasting no more time

BTW, I rock that sh!t on the mike.

I think that PMJ might have this right. It's a generational thing. That and I don't think much of simple fears. Cleek needs to get his Brown Wings.

Paul Girouard

09-12-2005, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
Don't hijack the thread Paul. This is about Gay marriage, I just mentioned how Canadians feel about abortion. If you don't like it, don't live here. ;) Seems to me you brought it up, and if you feel you can speak for" all Canadians", you must be somebody really important. Or full of some of Dan's duck poop:p

I don't live in Canada, ain't you happy, nor do I wish to live in Canada.

I just mentioned how I feel about killing babies , same oh same oh , savie?

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

09-12-2005, 11:19 PM

Where will it lead ?
Men & Men
Girls & Girls
Dogs & Cats

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid186/p7e211e6d7e4ff2d0dce39d279a9aeaa1/f2541735.jpg

:D

[ 09-13-2005, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

Bob Cleek

09-13-2005, 01:31 AM

Okay, Joe, now what if one of them were your daughter?

As for Pat's question, what WOULD a parent say if their gay kid announced an engagement. I mean, so who's the father of the BRIDE who has to pay for the reception and who's the father of the groom who has to pay...

I live in a state with "domestic partnerships" which are exactly the same as marriages. It's no big deal, but there never was really anything that you had to be married for that you couldn't provide for legally some other way.

Actually, the concept of homosexual marriage is simply a "double think" move to legitimize homosexual conduct in the society. "If they let them marry, it must be okay." This is yet another example of the moral "dumbing down" of America. The net result is a weakened social and moral fabric and a general erosion of integrity. And they wonder why the President lies to us and the CEO's rip us off!

formerlyknownasprince

09-13-2005, 02:47 AM

Aw c'mon - who gives a bugger?

:rolleyes:

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

09-13-2005, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
Okay, Joe, now what if one of them were your daughter?
Already thought about it and talked to my wife a long time ago about it. It was not much of a conversation since we both would not have any issue with Tess being homosexual. As long as she was happy. I seriously might have less of a worry than dealing with horny boys picking my daughter up. I also would support her right to have all the same bundle of rights by simply saying I DO like a traditional marriage.

Bob this is not one of those times when a person will sacrifice there personal feelings to support there statements. I honestly thought about it objectively, and I'm OK with it. The only concern I would have is in our current society it would be a more difficult life for her to choose . There would be ridicule and many people with your similar ignorance judging her based only on her sexual preference and not the content of her character.

[ 09-13-2005, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

Memphis Mike

09-13-2005, 06:58 AM

Pat sez:

"I was in heaven."

And:

"So I find this Ralph Lauren houndstooth thats just gorgeous."

;) :D

[ 09-13-2005, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: Memphis Mike ]

Memphis Mike

09-13-2005, 07:00 AM

[ 09-13-2005, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: Memphis Mike ]

Ian McColgin

09-13-2005, 07:03 AM

"Actually, the concept of homosexual marriage is simply a "double think" move to legitimize homosexual conduct in the society."

Well, that's refreshingly honest. Here we can see that the agenda of some opposing gay weddings is to delegitimize homosexual conduct.

But gay civil rights are not "another example of the moral "dumbing down" of America." Folk may "wonder why the President lies to us and the CEO's rip us off!" but most folk note that the President and the indicted CEOs are not gay.

There are profound moral issues in sexual behaviors but the moral issues are much the same whatever the sexual orientation. And they are better addressed openly than by giggly back alley smut. Gay liberation, like the other liberation and civil rights movements of our era, legitimizes freedom and by that, by extending civil rights, also fosters responsibility. The sickly twisted self-loathing and politically far right closet gays like J. Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohen are less likely to flourish in an open society. The violent albeit inspiring leadership of a Nat Turner or the apocalyptic poetry of a Gill Scott Heron would be transformed were they dealing with a more just world.

Don't get me wrong. Freedom is dangerous. People fail. People freely do things that they come to know were wrong. The gift of free will is one of the more disturbing paradoxes of the soul. But it's still there, no matter how repressive the society. And when a person grows in freedom, the moral quality of his or her free will is more beautifully manifest.

The only moral dumbing down is from those without the courage to face and live in freedom.

Chris Coose

09-13-2005, 07:05 AM

The Christian Civic League of Maine (http://www.cclmaine.org/) hates fags.

Maine passed a law that includes homosexuals from being discriminated against in banking, housing and education. These sonsobitches are looking to overturn the law by referendum by telling the sheep it is about gay marriage.
The leader Michael Heath can tell you all about how bad homos are. He's obsessed and very boring.

TomF

09-13-2005, 07:22 AM

Not having much luck with the troll, eh? I'm not seeing too many logical, rational, point-by-point arguments against gay marriage.

I think the argument I've heard most eloquently, is that gay marriage would be a parody of a "real" marriage. It's play-acting taken as real life: only a simulation of the "real" article (like a fiberglass boat).

When one confuses the "parody" with the "real thing," one trivializes the depth and resonance of the original, and contributes to its erosion and eventual decline. This is basically a twist on Baudrillard's insight, about "simulation" and "reality."

This argument can be powerful, depending on what you think a marriage between a man and a woman is primarily about. If it is primarily about procreation, then yes, gay marriage is clearly a "parody." But then, so are childless heterosexual marriages.

If a marriage between a man and a woman is primarily about sexual fidelity, then many homosexual marriages wouldn't make the grade ... but neither would many heterosexual ones.

If a marriage is an expression of a choice for trying to develop unconditional love for the other - a choice for building emotional intimacy, then there's an opportunity for both homosexual and heterosexual marriages to achieve it. But there are no guarantees, whatever the sexual orientation.

martin schulz

09-13-2005, 07:28 AM

Lets start with the first prejudice.

Its not natural!

Penguins in Bremerhaven “Zoo am Meer”

The penguins living in Bremerhaven Zoo got a lot of worldwide attention during the past few days. We don’t want to and won’t be able to pursue the topic because the background represents usual management of zoo animals, though a lot of different groups of people felt affected and concerned.

We had 10 male Humboldt penguins (Spheniscus humboldti) and 4 female animals. They got together as 4 heterosexual and 3 male pairs. During the past we determined that one male pair separated and one of the male penguins got together with one female penguin, which we got from our own breeding. So we searched for female penguins in order to make sure that the male pairs weren’t due to the lack of female animals.
Humboldt penguins are critically endangered in the wild and their breeding in European zoos is coordinated through the European Endangered species Program (EEP). It is our great interest to breed these species of penguins as well as possible. Coordinated through the EEP we were able to get 4 older female and 2 younger male penguins from Kolmarden zoo, Sweden. After the end of their quarantine period at the end of January we put them into our enclosure for penguins. The mating, which takes place every year, had already happened between our older animals. Usually the penguins choose the same partner they chose the year before, but alternations are quite possible.
The new animals first have to acclimatise to their new environment. That’s why it is unlikely that new pairs are going to get together this year. At the end of the breeding and moulting period the couples will separate and all penguins stay together until the new mating season starts. It is possible that during the next year the penguins will establish new and different pairs, including the new male and female arrivals. The whole behaviour will be scientifically observed and will find its conclusion during the next year.

We didn’t put any force on either the male or the female penguins in any way. We just tried to get a better composition of our breeding group. The penguins always were and will be free in their choices at any time.

We didn’t have any intention to draw conclusions from the breeding of penguins to human behaviour. We regret that the serious background didn’t get more attention.
As a result of the increasingly weird way people are handling this topic we reject any further statement.

Bremerhaven, 20. February 2005

Dr. Heike Kück
Director

Norman Bernstein

09-13-2005, 08:22 AM

Well, the good thing about laying down a troll at the end of the day is that you can accumulate overnight responses.

Of 32 responses, virtually none were actually responsive to the question I posed! Not surprising, though... for here in the bilge.

Anyhow, the two best answers were the following:

From Bob Cleek:

"Actually, the concept of homosexual marriage is simply a "double think" move to legitimize homosexual conduct in the society. "If they let them marry, it must be okay." This is yet another example of the moral "dumbing down" of America. The net result is a weakened social and moral fabric and a general erosion of integrity." That one wasn't all that responsive to the question, but was nonetheless probably indiciative of the actual agenda of those opposed to gay marriage.

From C223:

"By the way I dont like the idea of gay marriage and dont think it should be allowed. But damn if I cant think of a logical reason why. My feeling is that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. Why? Its what men and women are supposed to do. Dont ask me to defend it because I never could come up with a defense. Everything I cameup with sounded hollow... " The award goes to C223 for the most honest answer!

ljb5

09-13-2005, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
This is yet another example of the moral "dumbing down" of America. The net result is a weakened social and moral fabric and a general erosion of integrity. And they wonder why the President lies to us and the CEO's rip us off!Between the 'moral erosion' of homosexuality, and the 'moral erosion' of the government getting involved in private life, the bigger threat is the loss of freedom.

Pick your poison, Cleek: too much freedom -- or too little.

George Roberts

09-13-2005, 09:36 AM

Norman Bernstein ---

While I don't believe in God, god, or gods, I feel people who do form better communities.

While my daughter is gay, I feel that hetrosexuals make better communities.

I have more problems with laws banning gay marriage than with laws allowing it.

Laws banning gay marriage seem to say some people are not as good as others.

Bob Cleek

09-13-2005, 03:43 PM

"Here we can see that the agenda of some opposing gay weddings is to delegitimize homosexual conduct." Not exactly, Ian. Check the sylogism. "Legitimizing gay marriage = legitimizing homosexuality." doesn't equal "No gay marriage = illegitimizing homosexuality." It only means, at most, maintaining the status quo.

First, again, let me say that just because someone is of the opinion that the "gay lifestyle" or "gay marriage" is contrary to societal interests does not mean that they are "homophobic." Beyond that, I don't need to list my gay relatives or social contacts with the gay and lesbian community in the SF Bay Area nor protest that I am not "afraid" of homosexuals.

The "gay marriage" issue is one of public policy primarily. The question is whether the privileges and advantages given to heterosexual married couples as a matter of policy for the purpose of encouraging and preserving the family structure should be extended to anyone who wants to pair up with anyone else. That should have nothing to do with "homophobia," although I realize that for some knee jerkers, it does.

I don't really know the answer. There are an increasing number of gay couples who are trying to fit into the traditional "family" mold with natural or adopted children and the rest. In California, we have assigned them the option of "domestic partnerships" which are legally indistinguishable from marriage. In that fashion the "gay MARRIAGE" symantics are avoided. Granted, the Federal law does not provide the same at this point.

While there are as many flavors of "family" as there are families, I tend to believe that the more psychologically and societally positive model in which to raise children is the traditional nuclear family with both a mother and a father. This is, I believe, the prevailing expert opinion. No question that public policy favors supporting such marriages.

Now, although the American Psychological Association "caved in" to political pressure long ago and categorically declared homosexuality not to be pathological, I believe that it is essentially in the nature of a disability. As such, it should be accommodated. However, accommodating a disability requires a determination of reasonableness. Some disabilities for reasons of policy or practicality simply cannot be accommodated. At the outer fringes of example, we do not permit blind people to be licensed to drive school buses. This is not discrimination. Similarly, at present, the government has not allowed people who by the obvious nature of their gender cannot have children together to "marry." They have not, however, denied them "rights" that other unmarried people have. Why should gay people be allowed to "marry," but single heterosexual people be denied the benefits married people get? Well, because married heterosexual people are intended to build families and children. These are policy determinations the government is entitled to make, not the result of "discrimination" as many gay political activists would have us believe.

At the bottom line, the legality of homosexual behavior is based on the constitutional right to privacy. So long as they keep it private, they are within their rights. Marriage is NOT private. It is a public statement recognized and sanctioned by the government. While there is a right to engage in homosexual conduct, there is no constitutional right to the privileges the law affords heterosexual married couples for the purpose of fostering public policy.

The homosexual activists seek to cast the dispute in terms of homosexual conduct as the exercise of an involuntary predisposition which cannot be controlled. "It's natural!" they say. By their definition, then, since they "can't help it," anyone opposed to it is violating their civil rights. Homosexuality, however, is not one of the "enumerated protected classes" of the Federal Civil Rights Act. Their goal is to make it so. At present, discrimination against homosexuals is, I believe, morally wrong. Acknowledging the simple obvious fact that homosexual relationships are NOT the same as heterosexual relationships is NOT morally wrong. It's just plain silly.

Often the best way to evaluate an argument is to extend it to its logical conclusion. Consider, let's say there is a "right" that homosexuals may marry because their sexual choices are protected by the constitutional penumbra of "privacy." Similarly, by extension, there is a "right" to decide to engage in sexual conduct with more than one person at a time because that also is clearly protected by the right of privacy. Why can't three people of any gender then marry as well? Or four or five? And were that the case, would people who couldn't find a partner would be discriminated against by not having the legal righ to marry nobody? Would people who refused to marry them be "heterophobic?" And at what point does marriage then become a meaningless distinction?

[ 09-13-2005, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Bob Cleek ]

JormaS

09-13-2005, 03:43 PM

I think most men find male homosexuality repulsive to some extent. That is probably normal. Do women see it the same way? I don´t know...I have to ask around. Interestingly, I don´t find female homosexuality repulsive. I can´t say why...have to think about it.

But how does marriage come into this?

Marriage is not something that takes place just between two people. Marriage is an old institution which involves the couple and the community. A relationship between two people is fragile, and it needs all the reinforcement it can get if it is to hold out for more than a couple of years (not always, but in most cases). But who cares about the longevity of the relationship? The community does. There is a lot of accumulated wisdom in the human society. It is not wise to let the parents of small children drift apart. It spells trouble for the community.

Thus, marriage is there to protect parenthood. The wedding is a ritual where the community gives its consent and blessing and support to the couple...and the pair makes vows to stay at it, come what may. The whole procedure is designed to make it difficult for the couple to brake apart.

Now take all this into a gay "marriage". There is talk about equal rights et cetera. Rights to do what? Marriage is not about rights, it is about sense of duty and about obligations towards the next generation...which effectively also means obligations towards the whole community.

If two people love each other, why would the community interfere? In principle, gender should not make a difference. If, say, two males want to have sex with each other, there is nothing we can do about it. And it must be natural...to the extent that it is happening in nature! So why bother?

But if they want to get married and the community endorses it, then I think everybody involved have fundamentally misunderstood the whole idea of marriage. From the community´s perspective, a gay marriage does not serve any useful purpose.

(Edited for spelling)

[ 09-13-2005, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Jorma Salomaa ]

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

09-13-2005, 03:55 PM

Cleek on this one issue you are a psycho homophobic whack job. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Bob Cleek

09-13-2005, 04:00 PM

Sticks and stones... LOL

I don't think my gay friends would agree with you.

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

09-13-2005, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
Sticks and stones... LOL

I don't think my gay friends would agree with you.I got MORE gay friends and I KNOW they would agree with me :D Oh and mine work out LOL smile.gif

Bob Cleek

09-13-2005, 04:40 PM

Well, that's it for me... After nearly thirty years of practicing domestic relations law with published appellate opinions making such law in the state and federal courts, I should have known better than to try to discuss the finer distinctions of public policy with somebody who sells used houses. If I ever need a real estate salesman in your neck of the woods, I'll call ya, Joe. If you ever need a family law attorney in California, I'll give you a discount! LOL

[ 09-13-2005, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Bob Cleek ]

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

09-13-2005, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
Well, that's it for me... After nearly thirty years of practicing domestic relations law with published appellate opinions making such law in the state and federal courts, I should have known better than to try to discuss the finer distinctions of public policy with somebody who sells used houses. If I ever need a real estate salesman in your neck of the woods, I'll call ya, Joe. If you ever need a family law attorney in California, I'll give you a discount! LOLIt's the generation like me or the next that will overturn antiquated homophobic perceptions of your kind regardless of your thirty years of practicing domestic relations law. Its called progress and all it takes is time. Time for you to pass and the new ideas to come to light. No stick or stones needed, just time. It's starting to happen already maybe even before your pine box is ready you will see it.

Buy a house from me anytime you want I will never discriminate based on any reason other than the color of your money ;) Even if you are a homophobe. :D

[ 09-13-2005, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

Alan D. Hyde

09-13-2005, 05:23 PM

Joe, Cleek was trying to discuss this rationally.

"Homophobe" is name-calling--- not a part of reasoned and objective discussion.

If you wish to successfully refute him, you must deal with his logical points, not his persona.

Alan

Ian McColgin

09-13-2005, 05:54 PM

I believe it perfectly right to, as Mr. Cleek does, express both the personal and the public policy positions without being denigrated as "homophobic." As with racism and sexism, there are levels where honest people can part company on the meaning or corrigibility of a visceral response without labeling something with the social pathology of racism or sexism or homophobia.

I also think that practice in domestic law is good basis for viewing these issues. From that experience, one would see the myriad legal problems to any same sex couple. Even without children, there are hundreds of contracts to be made to ensure that in death, for example, one partner's wishes can be carried out by the other. Property division in the event the relationship is dissolved is messy with marriage and catastrophic without. Issues of retirement benefits, medical insurance and inheritance thoroughly establish same sex couples who would choose wedding were it available as utterly second class.

There are in social issues always matters of "where on the slippery slope." We see the prospect of gay wedding bandied as leading to multiple spouses, legalized incest, and the demise of civilization. But then, we saw many of these arguments from the extreme fail when laws against racial inter-marriage were demolished.

It's as if we were back when bastards could not inherit. Illegitimacy is illegitimacy whenever a class of people is denied the right to make a basic social contract. The status quo preventing full recognition of homosexual weddings preserves the illegitimacy of gay people.

Meerkat

09-13-2005, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
Well, the main reason that homosexual marriage isn't well received is because homosexual behavior disgusts most heterosexual people. Yeah - kinda like racism and bigotry - things learned at Momma's knee. :rolleyes:

Chris Coose

09-13-2005, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by MIke:
blah, blah blah, blah ....
Joe this, liberals that... blah blah blah So what have you to say on the topic? You are a self described conservative and "brainwashed neocon"

Add something.

ljb5

09-13-2005, 06:32 PM

.

[ 09-13-2005, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

Paul Denison

09-13-2005, 06:42 PM

ljb5

09-13-2005, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
After nearly thirty years of practicing domestic relations law....Bob, I simply can't believe you're any good at it....

The holes in your logic are large enough to drive a truck through, and I've pointed them out on several occasions.

If the purpose of marriage is to preserve intact families, why isn't divorce illegal?

Post-menopausal women are no more able to bear children than gay men -- should they be prohibited to marry?

Should childless couples be forced to procreate -- or forced to divorce?

Should unwed parents be forced to marry?

Should unwed couples be allowed to have sex?

Should married couples be prohibited from engaging in sodomy?

Should extra-marital affairs be illegal?

If marriage requires the consent of the community, should it be illegal to elope?

Should divorce require the consent of all the wedding guests?

If everyone decides that a couple is no good together -- yet they wish to remain married -- should they be divorced against their will?

All of these questions arise immediately from your statements about the purpose and public interest of marriage. Can you answer any of them?

[ 09-13-2005, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

Paul Denison

09-13-2005, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by ljb5:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
After nearly thirty years of practicing domestic relations law....Bob, I simply can't believe you're any good at it....

The holes in your logic are large enough to drive a truck through, and I've pointed them out on several occasions.

If the purpose of marriage is to preserve intact families, why isn't divorce illegal?

Post-menopausal women are no more able to bear children than gay men -- should they be prohibited to marry?

Should childless couples be forced to procreate -- or forced to divorce?

Should unwed parents be forced to marry?

Should unwed couples be allowed to have sex?

Should married couples be prohibited from engaging in sodomy?

Should extra-marital affairs be illegal?

All of these questions arise immediately from your statements about the purpose and public interest of marriage. Can you answer any of them?[/QUOTE]Bob doesn't need defending, but what the H&*# are you talking about? Did Bob post something on this thread that I missed?

ljb5

09-13-2005, 06:49 PM

Yes - Bob said that the purpose of marriage is to have intact families to raise children.

I ask if that principle applies to all people and all marriages.

Is it sometimes okay to have non-intact families?

Is it sometimes okay to have marriages without children?

[ 09-13-2005, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

adampet

09-13-2005, 06:50 PM

Bob,
Why do you think homosexuality is a "disability"? Disable to do what exactly?
Are homosexuals disabled because they're treated that way?
I'm fascinated by this train of thought.
Care to expand on this?
Adam

Peter Malcolm Jardine

09-13-2005, 07:48 PM

if you feel you can speak for" all Canadians", Not at all, but I speak for the record of Canadian feeling... the majority of Canadians endorse gay marriage and abortion. That's why it's law across the country. ;)

Bob Cleek

09-13-2005, 08:33 PM

Well, ljb5, without going off into a very boring discourse, the answer to all your questions is "fertile octogenarians!" The "fertile octogenarian" is a "legal fiction," a concept posited to make the nonsensical make sense. Obviously, eighty year olds who get married aren't going to procreate, but because there's really no way to make a hard and fast rule about how old you can be before you can't have kids, when making laws that apply to everybody, they posit the "fertile octogenarian." In other words, they treat everybody the same in a general class, despite the variations that normally occur in reality. When they decided to provide benefits to married couples, they could easily have simply limited it to couples who already had children, as the tax code does dependent exemptions, but then they wouldn't have been encouraging people to have children, which at one time when these laws were made was more desireable than it may be today. So, they decided to extend certain privileges and benefits to anybody who was married as a means of promoting public policy... hence the theoretical "fertile octogenarian." I hope that answers all your questions, lbj5.

The central point to realize in considering the public policy interest in permitting homosexuals to marry is the public policy considerations, not homosexuality itself. We have long ago decided as a system of law (and not of men) that our right to privacy entitles us to do whatever we want with our privates in private. Homosexuality isn't the issue. "Marriage" beyond the traditional context as a mechanism to promote public policies is what it is about. A much more difficult concept to consider, actually, with much more far reaching ramifications. (If gay marriage is permitted, for instance, what will it do to the cost of employer-provided health insurance premiums and what will that do to our cost of living... etc, etc.)

Heterosexual married people enjoy certain benefits under the law because the government wants to encourage certain behaviors. In the case of married people, it's raising kids in family units. These advantages aren't conferred because married people have a RIGHT to them that unmarried people don't, but simply because it is a cost-effective way for the government to get people to do what it wants... i.e. "promote public policy." At this stage of the game, I wonder whether the more equitable solution would be to eliminate ALL advantages married people now enjoy and let anybody who wanted to get married to whomever they wanted. And, while we are at it, eliminate divorce as we know it. You don't have to be married to fight over property and support, you know! This would, after all, make EVERYBODY equal, not just gays. Single people wouldn't be shortchanged for not being married either. I expect if that were the case, there'd be a lot fewer homosexuals wanting to get married. We aren't an agrarian society with a need for kids to bring in the harvest anymore. (By the way, another example of the public policy principle: The public policy recognizing the need for agricultural workers at harvest time was the reason for school "summer vacation.") Maybe encouraging "breeders" isn't sound public policy any longer? Food for thought, mmm?

Adampet, as long as homosexuals consider themselves homosexual not by choice, but by genetics ("nature vs. nurture" again!), and find themselves unhappy with their lot, as indeed the general tenor of their complaints seem to indicate, they are, by their own measure, disabled.

As for what they can't do that others can, I'm not so sure. They seem to have a list of grievances, no doubt. I'd say that if you couldn't do anything about running the risk of getting stomped in a Country Western bar, that could be a disability, no?

[ 09-13-2005, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Bob Cleek ]

Hughman

09-13-2005, 09:29 PM

[ 09-14-2005, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: Hughman ]

Peter Malcolm Jardine

09-13-2005, 09:31 PM

I'll try to deal with Bob's reply a bit at a time.

The central point to realize in considering the public policy interest in permitting homosexuals to marry is the public policy considerations, not homosexuality itself. I'd love to believe that because that would take most of the controversy out of the issue. Frankly, I think it is the human rights/public policy right consideration that made gay marriage an easy sell in Canada. We don't have to consider the health care benefits issue, but that is a small part of it anyway in my opinion. Most of the controversy is based on the moral and fundamentalist tenor of the population.

Heterosexual married people enjoy certain benefits under the law because the government wants to encourage certain behaviors. In the case of married people, it's raising kids in family units. First of all, I AM the Government. Unless things are very different in your democracy, I determine what will be tolerated, encouraged, discouraged, illegal etc in my country by voting. If I want Gays to be recognized as equals not only legally, but morally,(this takes longer) electing the appropriate people makes that happen. I don't want to get into a sidebar debate on morality and the law in democratic society, but....

The second part of this quote might have been true 50 years ago. With almost 50% of marriage ending in divorce, the idea of a civil or even religious union being a binding contract for creation of family is almost non existent, except in the dreams of the fundamentalist. Gays and lesbian couples adopt, single professional women has artificial insemination, and each of those choices can offer a child a loving, caring, nurturing environment in which to grow up.

Marriage is still accepted in our psyche as the method by which people (attempt to) devote their lives to one another. Why should gays be denied that symbolism? I say symbolism, because no signed paper or contract binds us to one another. It is our mind and our hearts that do that. The rest is politics and bureaucracy. That being said, that bureaucracy and symbolism become powerful in our society. Everyone should be entitled to share in that power.

Peter Malcolm Jardine

09-13-2005, 09:34 PM

Adampet, as long as homosexuals consider themselves homosexual not by choice, but by genetics ("nature vs. nurture" again!), and find themselves unhappy with their lot, as indeed the general tenor of their complaints seem to indicate, they are, by their own measure, disabled. I know of many gays who are unhappy with the way people have treated them, and derided them for their genetic makeup. THAT makes them "unhappy with their lot"

I'll make it easy for you: Imagine being black in Mississipi in 1950. Think black people are all disabled?

Meerkat

09-13-2005, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:

Heterosexual married people enjoy certain benefits under the law because the government wants to encourage certain behaviors. Aside from the rest of the convoluted, yet nonsensical in your thread, (NO doubt that you're a lawyer after this! ;) ), there's the most significant fatal flaw in your argument: Aside from the minimum standards of not murdering, stealing or committing fraud (etc. along those lines of basic essential behaviors), where in the Constitution is the goverment empowered to encourage certain behavoirs over others?

Let's face it: this is about religion and, in particular, the dominant religion in this country. Calling marriage "sacred" immediately puts it in the category of those things that the governemnt MAY NOT make an establishment of! :mad: :mad: :mad:

ljb5

09-13-2005, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
The "fertile octogenarian" is a "legal fiction," a concept posited to make the nonsensical make sense.Nope. It's still nonsensical. Willful self-deception is not a logical excuse. I could just as easily postulate "fertile homosexuals" and say that they could raise children.

Age limits are one thing, because it's difficult to say exactly when a woman becomes infertile. But what about surgical sterility? Should a woman with an hysterectomy be prohibited from marrying? She is part of a definable class. There is no possibility that she can bear children -- and there's no issue of a blurry line. There is a way to make a "hard and fast case."

Anyway, I'm glad you brought it up -- because as LegalExplanations.com (http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/fertile-octogenarian.htm) says, "most states have passed laws to resolve this issue."

Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/rule-against-perpetuities) and Law.com (http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=742&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C) make it very clear that the concept of a fertile octogenarian is applicable to issues of property rights (no mention of descrimination) -- they also say, "most states have passed laws to cure this anomaly."

You'll notice, of course that "www.FertileOctogenarian.com (http://www.fertileoctogenarian.com)" is a website of lawyer jokes.

I think that's what they call "hoist on your own petard."

You got any other gad-awful stupid ideas you want to try to believe?

Meerkat

09-13-2005, 10:19 PM

LBJ5

For a str8 guy, you blow more flames than Priscilla, Queen of the Desert! tongue.gif :D

We'll have to start calling you "Mrs. Doubtfire" :D

ljb5

09-13-2005, 10:38 PM

Bob, I'm still laughing about the lawyer jokes....

but I thought I'd bring up a couple other points.

We have long ago decided as a system of law (and not of men) that our right to privacy entitles us to do whatever we want with our privates in private.Unfortunately, this isn't so. Many people still believe homosexuality should be illegal. Amazingly, we often find these are the same people who oppose gay marriage. Coincidence?

If gay marriage is permitted, for instance, what will it do to the cost of employer-provided health insurance premiums and what will that do to our cost of living... etc, etc.)You haven't justified employer-provided health insurance for childless straight couples either. But the argument is stupid because basically you're claiming a discount for yourself, prohibiting it to others -- and then as justification showing that allowing it to others would prohibit it to you!

"Waiter! You can't give that man a discount -- you won't have enough left over to give me my discount!"

Heterosexual married people enjoy certain benefits under the law because the government wants to encourage certain behaviors."Nanny Government" at its worst. What if the government wants to encourage Catholicism?

Maybe encouraging "breeders" isn't sound public policy any longer? Food for thought, mmm?Food for thought? Eat up, my good man, eat up!

Bob Cleek

09-13-2005, 11:23 PM

Sigh... too bad I wasn't up against you guys in high school debate...

ljb5

09-13-2005, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
Sigh... too bad I wasn't up against you guys in high school debate...Why, because you're doing so well now?

You've introduced a concept which you describe as 'nonsense,' is discredited by three major refrences and linked to lawyer jokes...

Beyond that, you've admitted the practical justification for your position no longer exists and you haven't even come close to making a case for the moral jutification of government influencing behavior.

Exactly what part of this debate do you think you are winning?

[ 09-14-2005, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

Bob Cleek

09-14-2005, 01:42 AM

The "concept (I) introduced," the "fertile octogenarian" was an EXAMPLE, not an ARGUMENT, for Pete's sake.

Are you unable to see the distinction between "civll rights" and "privileges" the government has decided to extend in order encourage behavior? Everybody has a "right" to use the highways, but only cars with two or more passengers get to use the HOV "diamond" lanes in rush hour? You understand why the government does this? Capice?

Now, what public policy would be advanced if gays were allowed to marry and enjoy the benefits the government conveys to married people.

"Gay rights would be advanced." is NOT the right answer. I honestly don't know the what public purpose would be served by allowing gays to marry and enjoy those benefits. Anybody have any ideas. If such were so, I'd think it would be a sound reason to permit gay marriage. I'm not saying there is or isn't, one way or the other. (Some who aren't yahoos may have the intellectual curiousity to explore the question with a bit of discipline.)

And, yes, Peter, I do believe being black in Mississippi in 1950 was a disability. What else could you call it? Being a target of discrimination in a society that discriminates is surely disabling. So is poverty and illiteracy. Is the man who can't read less disabled than the man who's dyslexic?

[ 09-14-2005, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: Bob Cleek ]

Meerkat

09-14-2005, 01:46 AM

How about the right of freedom of association and equal protection under the law, just for starters?

How about a public interest in having gay men be faiithful to their partners to reduce the public cost of STD's/HIV? (Gay women seem to already be generally much more faithful to each other, I've read.)

Maybe Congress' mandate to provide for the common welfare includes being happy?

Having partner benefits might just reduce the public cost of healthcare for those not insured now. If everyone had healthcare insurance, premiums would drop drastically.

[ 09-14-2005, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

Bob Cleek

09-14-2005, 01:59 AM

Meer, we already have that covered in existing law. The US Supremes (again) recently struck down a Texas law prohibiting sodomy, for instance. There is no law against gays associating however they may wish, but in legislative and constitutional terms, "association" is something different from "marriage." And I fail to see any "equal protection" violation in the current marriage laws. "Equal protection" is not the same as "equal treatment." There is no law that prevents the government from extending incentive benefits to one group and not another if a public interest is served by doing so. Extending benefits is different from taking away entitlements. Like I said, how come Charlie gets to drive sixty on his motorcycle in the diamond lane while we sit in the bumper-to-bumper snarl?

Why do we provide benefits to married couples? Because it produces conduct which we want to see performed. What conduct does gay marriage promote that we want to see performed? Whatever it is will be the justification for extending benefits of marriage to gay folks. It isn't about what benefits the gay folks realize, Meer, it's about what benefits to society as a whole are intended to be realized.

Meerkat

09-14-2005, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by Katherine:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PatCox:
In my experience, women tend to be very tolerant of male homosexuals.

Yeah, because it gives us a guy who loves shopping as much as we do. tongue.gif [/QUOTE]And probably has better taste.. :D

Bob Cleek

09-14-2005, 02:06 AM

No fair, Meer! You edited your post while I was writing a response! LOL

Now we are closing in on some real answers. If we look at the sort of intentions justified the benefits given married people and see similar, or equally valuable, public interests that would be promoted by recognizing gay marriages, gay marriage would easily be legally justified. You've mentioned a few good ones. Whether they alone would justify such a leap is questionable, but there surely are others.

Perhaps my problem with extending the incentive benefits of marriage to gays is that I doubt whether we really have valid reasons for extending incentive benefits to married straights in this day and age. Mind you, that is a legal perspective that has nothing to do with anyone's religious or social reasons for wanting to be married, "committed," or whatever.

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

09-14-2005, 04:55 AM

I just cant believe Cleek is not as transparent to everyone as a prejudice HOMOPHOBE. All you have to do in most of his comments is replace the word homosexual with N*gger and your taken back to 1956 Mississippi or Jew and you are in 1940 Nazi Germany
Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
homosexual behavior disgusts most heterosexual people. I hope I don't have to draw a picture for you. Turn off your "safe search" and google "images..." you'll see what I mean.
Ya ya zeee Jews behavior disgusts most of those of PURE Germanic people. Just look at zem disgusting filthy Jews

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
Okay, Joe, now what if one of them were your daughter?What ifin one of them Negro boys was to marry yo sweet li'l WHITE daughter.

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
This is yet another example of the moral "dumbing down" of America. The net result is a weakened social and moral fabric and a general erosion of integrity.Ya ya once da Jew is allowed to pollute the pure blood line of ze Arian race The net result is a weakened social and moral fabric and a general erosion of integrity. Zig Heil

Or

Ya'll know mixin up them Negro kids with the OUR kids in public schools The net result is a weakened social and moral fabric and a general erosion of integrity.

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
Now, although the American Psychological Association "caved in" to political pressure long ago and categorically declared homosexuality not to be pathological, I believe that it is essentially in the nature of a disability. As such, it should be accommodated. However, accommodating a disability requires a determination of reasonableness. Some disabilities for reasons of policy or practicality simply cannot be accommodated. At the outer fringes of example, we do not permit blind people to be licensed to drive school buses. This is not discrimination.

The homosexual activists seek to cast the dispute in terms of homosexual conduct as the exercise of an involuntary predisposition which cannot be controlled. "It's natural!" they say. By their definition, then, since they "can't help it," anyone opposed to it is violating their civil rights. Homosexuality, however, is not one of the "enumerated protected classes" of the Federal Civil Rights Act. Their goal is to make it so.

disability???? :rolleyes:

Ze Jew is inferior they will never be as perfect as ze pure Germanic people. Dr Mengela Psychological Association categorically declared Jews to be pathological, I believe that it is essentially in the nature of a disability.

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
Adampet, as long as homosexuals consider themselves homosexual not by choice, but by genetics ("nature vs. nurture" again!), and find themselves unhappy with their lot, as indeed the general tenor of their complaints seem to indicate, they are, by their own measure, disabled.

As for what they can't do that others can, I'm not so sure. They seem to have a list of grievances, no doubt. I'd say that if you couldn't do anything about running the risk of getting stomped in a Country Western bar, that could be a disability, no?There we go again with the disability???? :rolleyes: you are a nut job Cleek

Oh and the getting stomped in a Country Western bar, that could be a disability, no? Shows the disability in YOUR thinking.

It is worthless trying to have a debate with an obvious homophobe. I will rest on the fact I have stated earlier It's the generation like me or the next that will overturn YOUR antiquated homophobic perceptions regardless of your thirty years of practicing domestic relations law. Its called progress and all it takes is time. Time for you to pass and the new ideas to come to light. No stick or stones needed, just time. It's starting to happen already maybe even before your pine box is ready you will see it.

[ 09-14-2005, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

cedar savage

09-14-2005, 05:52 AM

I think, in general, that Cleekster is spot on with his analysis.

Public policy interfering with "natural" marriage has a latency period during which serious flaws in the policy may not become visible.

One needs only to look at the so called "lost generation" of young men raised in ADC 'families'.

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

09-14-2005, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by cedar savage:
I think, in general, that Cleekster is spot on with his analysis.
Duh :rolleyes: geee surprise surprise :eek: how did I know you were gonna post that Savage?
Why do you even bother your just a Neocon Troll your opinion matters not. :D

[ 09-14-2005, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

adampet

09-14-2005, 06:23 AM

Bob wrote

Now, what public policy would be advanced if gays were allowed to marry and enjoy the benefits the government conveys to married people. How about the benefit that thier children would recieve from having a legally stable family, that doesn't have to worry about things like inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.

Because gays have children, and marriage seems to be a public policy about providing stable families for the benefit of children, therefore gays getting married benefits children.

Now of course if you want to say that gays shouldn't have children, you'd be a little late.

cedar savage

09-14-2005, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cedar savage:
I think, in general, that Cleekster is spot on with his analysis.
Duh :rolleyes: geee surprise surprise :eek: how did I know you were gonna post that Savage?
Why do you even bother your just a Neocon Troll your opinion matters not. :D [/QUOTE]Go grolsch somewhere else. In terms of this thread, go back and edit out the ad hominems and confine yourself to a discussion of the issue (I know that's hard for you, but try. O.K.?).

I, unlike you, am trying really hard not to troll or flame on this topic.

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

09-14-2005, 06:55 AM

I did savage read above if you can read :D

Del Lansing

09-14-2005, 07:29 AM

The real problem with "gay marriage" is it is an oxymoron. Check a dictionary, the definition of marriage is specifically a union between a man and woman. So "gay marriage" is sorta like saying a ketch-rigged yawl. Arguments regarding employer benefits cost are moot, "marriage" as a union between man/woman predates employer benefits. Disregarding biblical admonitions, if enforced, must be carried to the logical end of we must then legalize murder because "thou shalt not commit murder" predates any other written legislation in regards to murder.
So you say times change and law must reflect the current state of things? how about the statutory "age of consent"? It used to be little girls did not become fertile till 12 or 13, sometimes even 14 years. It is become more and more common for little girls to become fertile at 9 or 10 years. So with that "change" in the population it should be OK to bone lil 15 year olds right? afterall, with the right to privacy, whatever we do in our bedrooms is no business of the law.
So you cringe and say, that isn't right, how can you endorse sex with minors? but the "if it feels right and proper to us, so we should be allowed" argument posed from "gay rights" side_must_be applied equally. Does society really get to say what is abhorrent or not?

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

09-14-2005, 07:42 AM

Call it what you will but until a Gay Couple can get the same bundle of rights as a heterosexual couple can by simply saying I DO its discrimination.

Call it a domestic partnership, marriagay, fagiage, what ever you want I do not care. Just make it as easy as saying I DO and with those two simple words convey all the same health benefits, property and same rights I have by being in conventional marriage.

[ 09-14-2005, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

Del Lansing

09-14-2005, 08:01 AM

being in conventional marriage. That belies your real feelings that "gay marriage" is unconventional. Does society really get to say what is abhorrent or not?

peb

09-14-2005, 08:01 AM

This thread started out and has remained very one-sided. It is expected that those wanting not to change the government's definition of marriage must justify the status quo and then the debate is about that justification.

For those who want to change the government's definition of marriage, are the any limitations that can be placed on marraige?

[ 09-14-2005, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: peb ]

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

09-14-2005, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Del Lansing:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> being in conventional marriage. That belies your real feelings that "gay marriage" is unconventional. Does society really get to say what is abhorrent or not?[/QUOTE]Duh :rolleyes: mine is only a conventional marriage because homosexual marriages are for the most part nonexistent. :rolleyes:

Semantics aside, I believe society will get to say what is abhorrent or not? And more and more they are accepting Gay marriage and eventually I believe it will be come commonplace and conventional ;)

By the way Del

Does society really get to say what is abhorrent or not?OLD society USED to think interracial marriage was abhorrent. The good news is society evolves :D

[ 09-14-2005, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

Del Lansing

09-14-2005, 08:26 AM

It is expected that those wanting not to change the government's definition of marriage It is not "the government's definition", it is _the_definition.

So the question is where is the justification of changing the definition of marriage?

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

09-14-2005, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Del Lansing:
[QUOTE] So the question is where is the justification of changing the definition of marriage?Call it a domestic partnership, marriagay, fagiage, what ever you want I do not care. Just make it as easy as saying I DO and with those two simple words convey all the same health benefits, property and same rights I have by being in a hetrosexual marriage.

peb

09-14-2005, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Del Lansing:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> It is expected that those wanting not to change the government's definition of marriage It is not "the government's definition", it is _the_definition.

So the question is where is the justification of changing the definition of marriage?[/QUOTE]Well lets see, if the government passes a law or the courts decide that homosexual marriage is legal, does _the_ definition of marriage change or is it just the government's definition?

Does all of society/culture go the way that the government goes?

And my original guestion stands, what limitations can the govermnemt place on marriage?

[ 09-14-2005, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: peb ]

Ian McColgin

09-14-2005, 08:48 AM

How to unpack a remark like:

"Public policy interfering with "natural" marriage has a latency period during which serious flaws in the policy may not become visible.

One need only to look at the so-called "lost generation" of young men raised in ADC 'families'. "

Let's start at the back end. Family studies are contradictory but among the few bits of clarity has been the disproving of half-baked intuitions that welfare programs have a different impact on the boy children than the girl children.

Wealth and poverty and almost everything about society may be believed to impact girls and boys differently but isolate a more minute variable like welfare payments and the ability to measure a difference not also found in non-welfare families vanishes. Poverty has terrible impacts on families and children, some of which are ameliorated by welfare payments. One wonders, for example, if the child who grew to be our forty-second president would have gotten through school without the admittedly limited stability provided by welfare. But it's clearly not a boy-girl thing.

There is no "lost generation," much less a lost generation of young men, associated with welfare payments.

So much for the assumption by tenuous analogy that speculative serious flaws in a public policy legitimizing homosexual weddings will even happen. How 'bout that latency period?

Most policy flaws that take time to have a material effect in any event. Good changes take a while to be manifest as well. It's like changing course or speed with a large vessel. There may also be unintended consequences for good or evil.

The important thing is that in policy debate or implementation, one must deal with the predictable. Our Gov. Romney (remember this when he runs for president) all alone chose to cut 3/4th out of the fairly cheap raccoon baiting program that had kept rabies off Cape Cod. It wasn't even an A&F bright idea. His alone! The cut saved some money in the short run. However one predictable consequence would be the cost of dealing with rabies on Cape Cod. I thought it would take a year for rabies to get across the Canal. In the event, the "latency period" was only about 8 months. The consequences of that particular savings were as obvious as the consequences of cutting SELA funding, which came due two weeks ago. Now we get to spend many times more curing the preventable. That's latency. But where are the known negative social consequences of gay weddings?

What is this "natural marriage?"

The Roman Catholic Church regards marriage as a sacrament. Many Protestant churches do not. In fact, the first marriages in Massachusetts were entirely civil, not done at all in the churches. Even within "Catholic countries" marriage was about property and inheritance, which is why marriage and bastardy were utterly unimportant among serfs and such. Marriage was relatively unimportant outside the aristocrats until the dawn of the European middle class and the consequent need to regulate property for a whole new bunch of folk.

I always liked the way marriage could be made to cover the past, quite literally. For example, the philosopher Erasmus and most of his siblings were born before the marriage of his parents. As was custom, the children were legitimized by huddling under their mother's bridal gown during the ceremony. Other charming customs of old included the droits of the king to at least deflower, if not impregnate, a virgin before marriage. It's good to be the king.

But marriage has changed since then.

Notions of erotic and romantic love have been off and on twined into marriage, especially in smaller tribal societies. Thus, the remarkably powerful poetry of the Song of Solomon rose from and transcended both Baal worship and traditional wedding cycle songs.

In the diverse societies we've had upon this earth, 'marriage' has been though many forms, including man with women and woman with men. There have been matrilineal and patrilineal descent systems. We've seen huge diversity in the forms of marriage with three constants up to now.

Two marriage constants have been that marriage defines property rights and interpersonal rights such as child raising.

Heterosexuality has been the third. Even though there has always been the informal recognition of gay couples - witness the lovely 19th century term "Boston Marriage" - the institution of marriage up to now has implied the participation of both sexes.

We who advocate legalizing weddings for gay people know all that.

We do not wish to change any religious notions of marriage nor do we see any need to change the happy economy of permitting religious weddings to be registered civilly with little further paperwork. We just see no reason for civil authority (or any religious authorities which so choose) to deny to homosexual citizens contract rights it permits heterosexual citizens.

We happen to see no exclusive magic in the romantic, erotic and living love between heterosexuals that does not happen between homosexuals. It's the love and sexuality and commitment that matter, not the sexual orientation.

We also see that the property management and child raising issues addressed by the institution should not be exclusively for heterosexuals. Just as we have heterosexual couples who live without benefit of marriage (as I do), we have homosexual couples whose circumstances - property, commitment, children and/or just old-fashioned romantic image - call for them to wed.

The Hebrews transcended Baal worship and still incorporated a vigorous healthy sexuality into weddings. So also we should transcend mere heterosexism and recognize that there is no socially good reason to deny to homosexuals the property and other couple-specific rights conferred by marriage.

Gay weddings in no way threaten or undermine heterosexual marriage.

Marriage is a terrific social institution for organizing property and other contractual issues, establishing responsibility and control over children, and recognizing publicly the love of two people. Any two people.

peb

09-14-2005, 08:56 AM

Ian McColgin wrote:

Even within "Catholic countries" marriage was about property and inheritance, which is why marriage and bastardy were utterly unimportant among serfs and such. Please provide some reference for this claim.

Ian McColgin

09-14-2005, 09:21 AM

I thought my reference to serfs established the medieval timeline here. Any standard cultural history text will note the fluidity, to say the least, of marriages between serfs, many of whom were simply sexual property or laboring property for the aristocrats.

There were churchmen who ministered to the serfs and the Church regarded marriage as a sacrement, but the focus of society was on property and property holders.

As ever.

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

09-14-2005, 09:26 AM

Dats what I'm talkin about Ian. Nice job one two punch, well said as usual. Gee how many years have you been working with the finer distinctions of public policy ? ;)

[ 09-14-2005, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

ljb5

09-14-2005, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
What public policy would be advanced if gays were allowed to marry and enjoy the benefits the government conveys to married people.

"Gay rights would be advanced." is NOT the right answer.Yes, it is.

Gay rights would be advanced. Human rights would be advanced. Civil rights would be advanced.

(Incidentally, it would promote monogamy and fidelity, which is clearly a benefit to society -- and so your entire argument collapses.)

Except, of course, it never really was your argument -- for I have shown a dozen situations in which heterosexual marriage does not produce the 'benefit to society' you claim is so critical. You have failed to address these situations.

The main problem with your logic is the belief that we are tools the government manipulates to achieve its goals -- instead of the other way round.

If everything had to pass the 'benefit to society' test before it was permitted, we'd need the government's permission to go sailing, go on vacation or mow the lawn.

[ 09-14-2005, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

Bob Cleek

09-14-2005, 02:57 PM

Not me! LOL (Another urban legend, I believe.)

Ignoring for the moment the yahoos, try to focus on the real issue. What public policy is furthered by gay marriage? If a policy argument can be made, then gay marriage makes sense. If not, it is just a "give away" that leaves single people still disadvantaged, by the definitions that seem to be applied here.

Let me ask the question another way in the hope of making clear the concept of government sponsored favoritism in furtherance of public policy.

Let's say a government agency provides subsidized child care for its employees. (Sadly, remember the Murrah Building?) Does that impermissibly discriminate against government employees who don't have children?

In the same fashion, government benefits conferred on heterosexual married couples does not impermissibly discriminate against homosexual or single people.

Harry Miller

09-14-2005, 04:23 PM

What to say? Where to start? Why Bother?
After writing a little family history I decided to go with the third option.
Here's a real turkey baster baby.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid187/p1ef6888ab608925c85f441ac95c83cb7/f24b1d54.jpg

He's just started school and he's going to have a similar sister in December.
I can't help thinking that all the legalistic smoke and mirrors is just that and the smoke is blinding too many of you to reality.

[ 09-15-2005, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: Harry Miller ]

ljb5

09-14-2005, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
What public policy is furthered by gay marriage? If a policy argument can be made, then gay marriage makes sense.Gay marriage promotes monogamy and fidelity which reduces the threat of transmittable disease to the general population.

There, it's done. Gay marriage makes sense.

Of course, the whole "public policy" argument is pure B.S. What do I care how my neighbor raises his kids? Ain't none of my business.

And if it were my business, what's to stop me from telling him to raise his kids Catholic?

And if it is my business how he raises his kids, why extend the same benefits to straight couples without kids?

[ 09-14-2005, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

Bob Cleek

09-14-2005, 09:02 PM

Yea, but nature seems to throw us a curve ball every so often. I understand Jamie Lee has roundly denied it... but Richard Gere did the same with the gerbil!

Of course, the whole "public policy" argument is pure B.S. What do I care how my neighbor raises his kids? Ain't none of my business.

Wow! Caring about how your neighbor raises his kids is really at the core of caring about where our society is going... in a broad sense. In a narrow sense, if he doesn't do a good job of it, you'll have a reason to care soon enough! LOL

Gay marriage promotes monogamy and fidelity which reduces the threat of transmittable disease to the general population.

Those are valid reasons for gays forming committed relationships, if the statement is true. I don't know that you can justify a public policy argument in favor of monogamy or fidelity, except that it lowers the incidence of mahem. The benefit or law promoting public policy must have a "rational relationship" to the end desired. These come close. I think that the more frequently homosexual couples are raising children, the more logical homosexual marriage becomes, from a policy/benefit analysis. The civil rights argument just doesn't cut it. I would think that denying benefits to gay couples who are raising children that are otherwise provided for straight couples with kids would clearly be unconstitutional.

[ 09-14-2005, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Bob Cleek ]

PatCox

09-14-2005, 09:21 PM

But Cleek, you have already said that the policy justification for hetero marriage is entirely based on providing benefits which encourage them to stay together to raise children.

Therefore, denying gays who are raising children the benefits of marriage, which is jsutified by the desire to benefit those who are raising children, by your very words is unconstitutional.

Now I think you agree that it would also be unconstitutional to prohibit gays from adopting or using artificial insemination or surrogacy to have children.

And you have already said that the fact that heterosexuals are barren or simply don't want to have children and therefore use birth control, is no justification for denying them the benefits of marriage.

Therefore, there is no justification for denying gays the benefit of marriage just because they might not want to avail themselves of available means of having and raising children.

What have I got wrong here? How can you wriggle out of this without saying its simply because you don't think gays should marry, and in fact it has nothing to do with children?

Peter Malcolm Jardine

09-14-2005, 09:27 PM

The civil rights argument just doesn't cut it. Hmm... I really don't know what to say to this one. :rolleyes: Canadians would disagree with you on this one, but what do we know, We only have the highest standard of living in the world. :D

Peter Malcolm Jardine

09-14-2005, 10:17 PM

Your president ain't gettin the chance to send me to Gitmo or Syria ...chump. ;)

Meerkat

09-14-2005, 10:48 PM

If marriage is supposed to make sense, how does it make sense for Britney Spears to be married for, what was it, 40 hours, and then get an annulment?

If marriage is about fertility, why doesn't it make sense to defer it until one's partner is pregnent, rather than before the fact?

From someone's perspective, there are any number of human social behaviors that make no sense. Who's to judge and by what secular authority?

ljb5

09-14-2005, 10:57 PM

Cleek:

Raising children is not the only public policy issue.

Sexually transimittable diseases are a public health issue and therefore a public policy issue.

Encouraging monogamy reduces the transmission of disease. Therefore gay marriage does have public policy issues and, by your own standard, should be allowed.

Q.E.D. Game set and match. Give it up.

(Of course, there are many gays who don't have sexually transmittable diseases -- but just like your 'fertile octogenarian' I can posit the existence of anyone I want. It's no easier to identify a contagious homosexual than it is to identify an infertile woman, so there is no 'hard and fast' test.

Allowing gay marriage is not a perfect protection against the spread of disease --- but heterosexual marriage is a very imperfect way to create stable families. Witness the high divorce rate and the high rate of pregnancy out of wedlock.

Your 'public policy' test sets the bar very low because marriage does a piss poor job of actually promoting stability (low effectivness)-- and provides privlidges to many who never raise children (low specificity.)

Therfore, if gay marriage provides any benefit, no matter how hypothetical, it is at least as justifiable under your reasoning.)

Bob Cleek

09-14-2005, 11:13 PM

Your 'public policy' test sets the bar very low because marriage does a piss poor job of actually promoting stability (low effectivness)-- and provides privlidges to many who never raise children (low specificity.)

It isn't MY public policy test, it's the government's. I entirely agree with your observations. I do wonder whether the advantages presently afforded married people are STILL justified on a public policy analysis, although I am sure many could make one. If so, then it simply becomes a matter of considering whether, as a matter of promoting public policy, the legislators want to extend the same benefits to gay couples, married or not.

But Cleek, you have already said that the policy justification for hetero marriage is entirely based on providing benefits which encourage them to stay together to raise children.

No, I didn't. Staying together and raising children is only one obvious public policy that is furthered by benefiting married people. God knows how many others there are. Perhaps as many as creative minds can devise. Generally speaking, the public policy favoring marriage recognizes that marriage is good for society. Now, if the same public policy is fostered by gay marriages, there is no reason not to have them.

The point is that the benefits conferred on married people aren't "rights," but privileges or benefits intended to encourage marriage. This principle is employed all over the place in the law. They give tax advantages to farmers for not growing the crop they grew last year because they want to encourage certain agricultural policies. (Although the farmers may dispute this!) That doesn't mean that folks who aren't farmers and/or didn't plant that particular crop last season are being discriminated against.

As I said, if gay marriage promotes the same public benefit that straight marriage does, then it SHOULD receive the same incentives.

The BIG problem is, however, that there is where the controversy lies. Do the benefits heterosexual marriage gives a society similarly derive from "homosexual marriage?"

Maybe somebody with more time than me can research some Supreme Court cases which may give us the definitive word on what public policy is served by marriage. Google "Loving v. Virginia" for openers. That's the antimiscegination case.

Meerkat

09-14-2005, 11:19 PM

WELL, since this is OBVIOUSLY a Cleek/lbj5 debate, I'll bow out...

BTW, did you mean "antimiscegenation"? ;)

ljb5

09-14-2005, 11:41 PM

Forget "Loving v. Virginia"

Check out "Meyer v. Nebraska"

While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 4, 1923Just to clarify -- the U.S. Supreme Court said there is a right to marry. It is not merely a 'privledge' granted by the government, but it is one of the rights of the individaul.

Paul G

09-14-2005, 11:44 PM

If gay people wish to marry, who am I to say no. Homosexuality has been around a long time and isnt going away. The real issue is perhaps the obvious fact that a large proportion of hetero marriages fail, and therefore it is all to easy to say that the "faggots" are eroding our beloved institution. How frightening to the conservative mindset that gays might actually love, respect till death etc and have a great time along the way. If the sexual act is what you are focused on gimme a break, wake up and have browse through the almost unescapable deviant zoo that is the internet, you will find many hetero folks enjoying a spot of sodomy etc. so forget that angle.
If two hetero guys decided to live together in the same house and raise a few kids, would you still have a problem or is it just the kissing? I really think you underestimate the amazing attraction of the opposite sex to most men!
Character is imho more important that sexual preferance, being hetero does not have the exclusive monoply on honesty, forbearance, courage, etc,etc,etc.

As for social breakdown, dont blame the gays blame your own moral bankruptcy. How amusing to have an ethical debate on this subject when the whole ethos of the day is "screw you, 'cause im ok" (NO and Iraq)