Marriage Debate

bluess said:
I officially have steam coming out of my ears.

Hardenbergh, I strongly suggest you study American history, especially in relation to women's and minority rights. And after some of your comments, a good review of a high school civics text would also be a appropriate.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, Hardenburgh's type is only interested in one history book. The bible. That it is fiction is troubling to me too, but what can we do but laugh at this point?
 
Hardenbergh said:
The majority of Americans are against same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

So? The majority of Americans are Christians, too, but you won't find me converting any time soon.

The question of equal opportunity before the law is not a popularity contest.
 
Cleon said:
So? The majority of Americans are Christians, too, but you won't find me converting any time soon.

The question of equal opportunity before the law is not a popularity contest.
Click to expand...

Technically, and by a very slim margin, the majority of Americans are women. Let's infringe on all men's rights.
 
Cleon said:
So? The majority of Americans are Christians, too, but you won't find me converting any time soon.

The question of equal opportunity before the law is not a popularity contest.
Click to expand...


I think you mean equal protection, as defined in the Bill of Rights?
 
Snide said:
Unfortunately, Hardenburgh's type is only interested in one history book. The bible. That it is fiction is troubling to me too, but what can we do but laugh at this point?
Click to expand...

You're right, you're right ....

I'll refresh myself with thoughts of Hardenbergh in a traditional marriage. Hope she won't mind the lack of autonomy.
 
Jocko said:
I think you mean equal protection, as defined in the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...

*And equal opportunity, Jocko. No one is entitled to a driver's liscence, for example, but we're all given equal opprtunity to try and get one.
 
bluess said:
Yep, a hundred years ago, we didn't have a computer to send letters to grandma on. This is outside of our experience and tradition, and therefore we should try to pass a constitutional amendment to keep from sending email to grandma....
Click to expand...
Hey, my grandma was a computer.

Of course, that word meant something different in the 1930's.


As to the original topic:
I don't see why we can't get government out of the whole marriage deal anyway. Let churches impose any restriction they want to, and have the government define "civil union" as "a legal bond, intended upon entrance to be lifelong, between two consenting adults" or somesuch. No reason to use the same word ("marriage") to mean two unrelated but commonly-confused states.
 
Hardenbergh said:
The majority of Americans are against same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...
I realize that this board is not a proper statistical sampling of the US, but I've started a poll to get a feel for what this board's general feelings are on same-sex marriage, broken down by religious and political demographics.

This will neither prove nor disprove your point, but it might be interesting.
 
Beleth: You speak truth. I collect the kind of calculating machines your grandma probably used. :-) Punch the keys, pull the crank, feel the numbers crunch. Literally crunch.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter what the union is called as long as the rights conferred are identical regardless of the participants' sexes. No more not being allowed to visit a critically ill partner in the hospital despite a life-long commitment, to name just one of the serious injustices described in a radio report I heard on NPR. Real people are being done real harm by discrimination according to sexual orientation.

There are people who are very deeply set on "marriage" and not even a 100% functional substitute. I don't want to try second-guessing them on that issue, and haven't a strong stand either way.
 
Hardenbergh said:
I don't know about sources that compare the two but here's a document about the demand for same-sex marriage:

http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.demandforssm.pdf
Click to expand...

And again, the popularity of demand is not the issue.

Most people did not women to vote prior to their being given the right to do so. Go read Louisa May Alcott's "Jo's Boys". There's a lovely bit in it where the sisters are being accompanied by one of the boys to go vote.

Did the document you linked to present the rates of marriage between M-F couples in those countries/jurisdictions?

Beleth, stop being logical all over the place. What do you think - we should base public policy on rationality? Jeez....:)
 
Beleth said:
As to the original topic:
I don't see why we can't get government out of the whole marriage deal anyway. Let churches impose any restriction they want to, and have the government define "civil union" as "a legal bond, intended upon entrance to be lifelong, between two consenting adults" or somesuch. No reason to use the same word ("marriage") to mean two unrelated but commonly-confused states.
Click to expand...

I've occasionally advocated this, but I think the old fashioned, government interfering sort of marriage still has a place in our society, so these days I lean toward the "covenant marriage" route. It's basically the same thing, but instead of renaming marriage "civil union" and making it kind of a "marriage lite", you keep the name, make it "marriage lite", and then create a new name for what used to be called "marriage". 'No one feels like they're cheated out of anything that way.

ETA: A few turns back I also noted, and I'll bring up here again, that a lot of marriage benefits actually have their origin as child-care benefits, and it really ought to be separated out that way. There's no reason for government or employers to give me health insurance just because I'm sleeping with my roommate, regardless of my gender, my roommate's gender, or how long we promise to sleep together.
 
Last edited:
bluess said:
And again, the popularity of demand is not the issue.
Click to expand...
I was asking for numbers to back up a prior assertion, with the understanding that it was a side issue irrelevant to the issue at hand. Without the women's suffrage support numbers Hardenbergh was comparing the gay marriage support statistics to, I can't verify Hardenbergh's contention as to which had greater support, but in any case I'll let the matter drop with apologies for the digression. I mention it now mostly to explain why Hardenbergh put that link up.
 
Meadmaker said:
I've occasionally advocated this, but I think the old fashioned, government interfering sort of marriage still has a place in our society, so these days I lean toward the "covenant marriage" route. It's basically the same thing, but instead of renaming marriage "civil union" and making it kind of a "marriage lite", you keep the name, make it "marriage lite", and then create a new name for what used to be called "marriage". 'No one feels like they're cheated out of anything that way.
Click to expand...
While I see the sense in this, it's forcing the other party (religion) to change something when the government has no power to force such a thing. Religion has pretty heavily co-opted the term "marriage"; if there's going to be any change of word, it's going to have to come from the government's side.

a lot of marriage benefits actually have their origin as child-care benefits, and it really ought to be separated out that way. There's no reason for government or employers to give me health insurance just because I'm sleeping with my roommate
Click to expand...
That's an ugly road to go down, because it leads to taking rights away from childless heterosexual couples too. So the reason to do it is that it's discriminatory to not do it.
 
Beleth said:
That's an ugly road to go down, because it leads to taking rights away from childless heterosexual couples too. So the reason to do it is that it's discriminatory to not do it.
Click to expand...

Taking away rights? Taking away benefits, maybe, but rights? That's an odd definition of "right".
 
I just thought about this while posting in another thread on the issue:

How moral is it to accept two guys scrogging out of wedlock, yet tell children that sex is only meant for wedlock?
 
wastepanel said:
So, as a society based upon everybody having the same rights, can you say that one group should recieve favor over another? It doesn't make any sense in the US today.
Click to expand...

So can I count on your vote to support me to disban all government recognition of marriage? Or do you, as most, support laws which favor the married over the single?

Aaron
 
wastepanel said:
I just thought about this while posting in another thread on the issue:

How moral is it to accept two guys scrogging out of wedlock, yet tell children that sex is only meant for wedlock?
Click to expand...

With all this talk of banning gay marriage, I believe there is this unspoken "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" kinda of thing going on that says "Homosexuality is wrong and immoral."
The fundies come right out and say it, but someone like Bush has to pretend he's all for the gays, just not them getting married. In some ways, it's actually amazing that a born again evangelical politician even concedes them any kind of rights. That never would have happened in days gone by, when them queers weren't even discussed in politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom