Marriage Debate

[Huntster]

I recall back in the days of trying to pass the Equal Rights Ammendment that some opponents invented all sorts of wild, ridiculous, charges about what would happen if we passed the ERA. Every time they did that, irate feminists would attack those people for such obvious lies.

One of those obvious lies was that the passage of the Equal Rights Ammendment would some day lead to homosexuals demanding the right to marry, because, they would say, you aren't really discriminating against them on anything other than their gender. ERA proponents of course ridiculed this ridiculous notion.

There's that nasty slippery slope, that some folks claim don't exist.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

There's that nasty slippery slope, that some folks claim don't exist.

It's irrelevant whether it exists or not, it's specious resoning to argue from it. You cannot prove X will lead to Y and you can't prove that preventing X will prevent Y.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Okay, back, in pieces.

…

Yup. You can lap the ladies all your life. Suck one lollypop, and you're a lollypop sucker forever.................

I kind of get a kick out of it when this happens to people who don’t like homosexuals, but I wouldn’t have a lot of much patience with either of the “guys” . Wasn’t married I hope, seriously.

Are priests who live up to their vows heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, or................what?

You’ll have to ask them, but I’d not expect an answer nor would I feel entitled to one (not that you would). But the Pope seems to think it’s a good idea to keep homosexuals out of the priesthood, even if they live up to their vows.

Since they never engage in a sex act for their whole lives, can they "declare" their "sexual orientation"?

Again, they can say whatever they want, but the orientation towards men or towards women or towards both or neither, is either there or it isn’t.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
There's that nasty slippery slope, that some folks claim don't exist.

It's irrelevant whether it exists or not, it's specious resoning to argue from it. You cannot prove X will lead to Y and you can't prove that preventing X will prevent Y.

You want to talk about "irrelevancy"? Here's some:

It's irrelevant whether or not I can prove it exists or not. I only need to believe it, and vote accordingly.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You want to talk about "irrelevancy"? Here's some:

It's irrelevant whether or not I can prove it exists or not. I only need to believe it, and vote accordingly.

You vote how you like. That's your right.

If you want to convince us that your opinions are based on anything other than religiously modivated bigotry, you must make a sound logical argument in favor of the policies you support.

I'll make a form for you.

My logical reason for supporting the continued illegal status of same sex marriages is _______________________________________________

 

[Huntster]

You can lap the ladies all your life. Suck one lollypop, and you're a lollypop sucker forever.................

I kind of get a kick out of it when this happens to people who don’t like homosexuals, but I wouldn’t have a lot of much patience with either of the “guys” ....

I had no patience for that idiot, either. He was a true pain in the butt.

Wasn’t married I hope, seriously.

Not at the time. If he got married later in life, I sure feel sorry for his wife.

Are priests who live up to their vows heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, or................what?

You’ll have to ask them, but I’d not expect an answer nor would I feel entitled to one (not that you would). But the Pope seems to think it’s a good idea to keep homosexuals out of the priesthood, even if they live up to their vows.

After the recent scandals, it's no wonder homosexuals are not welcome in the priesthood anymore.

BTW, Catholic seminaries have long been secretly in scandal regarding homosexuality. The hierarchy tolerated the situation because of the decline in vocational entry into the priesthood during the past half century or so in the West.

 

[Huntster]

....If you want to convince us that your opinions are based on anything other than religiously modivated bigotry, you must make a sound logical argument in favor of the policies you support.....

I hold no illusion that I will convince you of anything.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I hold no illusion that I will convince you of anything.

If you came up with a compelling logical reason, you might be surprised. Maybe that Jesus-zombie will bring it back with him.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Does that include engaging in a sex act with someone of the opposite gender?

Yes, and it’s happened many times in history and keeps happening today, very often to the long term detriment of many heterosexual men and women.

I’d not call your “buddy” a homosexual either, would you? It is a sexual orientation, not a sexual action.

I mean, if someone was coerced with violence or death while in prison to perform a homosexual act, you’d say they were gay? I know, to, say, save the life of another I’d perform a heterosexual sex act, if I could, but that would change nothing about my sexual orientation.

Nope. I call a woman who never engages in homosexuality a heterosexual.

So you have no one word to distinguish between women who are attracted only to women and women who are attracted only to men? The dictionary does. But to you they are both heterosexuals, only one is tempted with sin? And why, when you feel the exact same attraction, is it not “tempted with sin”?

Correct. Just like when you become so angry with someone, and you're tempted to whip their ass (but don't) means you haven't committed battery.

Sure, but you still felt it; you even have a name for people who feel it often: hothead, firebrand, etc. You still have a particular temperament, regardless of what you do.

Been there:

And:

Yes, certainly there are dire warnings and terse restriction, but this was the one I was remembering, 2358. A deep-seated tendency. These people with these tendencies are “homosexual persons”. (I find it so odd how a heterosexual catholic can so vehemently debase these “tendencies”, when he or she feels and acts on the exact same tendencies a homosexual of their opposite-sex experiences)

One does not become homosexual by temptation any more than one becomes a murderer that way.

Not according to the dictionary, and I don’t think the RCC is clear here. Seems you can be a “homosexual person” with these tendencies, and never have sex, and therefore both be a homosexual person with a deep-seated inclination and not morally qualified by the RRC as one who practices homosexual sex.

One becomes homosexual by acting out that temptation, just like a murderer becomes a murderer by acting out that temptation, just like a thief/fornicator/liar/etc.............................

Nice. See what I meant about the inevitability of offence? If your moral framework puts all that stuff together with consenting homosexual sex, I say you would succeed in vilifying homosexuality, the aim, but you also trivialize murder. We clearly have a different moral framework, and there’s probably no point in debating it, but we already knew that.

I also have to wonder, from the RCC’s viewpoint, would you think homosexuals living together, raising adopted kids, and so on, but not having sex, sinning? Are they even homosexuals to the RCC, in your opinion?

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

I wouldn't have thought that there was an ERA web page, but I looked it up. I didn't see anything about gay marriage, but I didn't look very hard...

In their FAQ:

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm

How does the ERA relate to the issue of homosexual rights?
ERA opponents’ claim that the amendment would require states to allow same-sex marriage is false. The state of Washington rejected such a claim under its state ERA in the 1970s. The state of Hawaii, which considered such a claim under its state ERA, recently amended its constitution to declare marriage a contract between a man and a woman. The legislative history of the ERA shows that its intent is to equalize rights between women and men, not to address issues of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

ZirconBlue and they have a point.

Still, it admittedly would be used by others and myself to try to get the “equal rights” regardless of sex that are promised in the ERA, as gays have already similarly tried with what’s already in place.

I’m sorry, Woman’s Movement, but it’s a fact. It's true .

 

[ZirconBlue]

ZirconBlue and they have a point.

I do? Uh, I mean, yes. I do.

 

[Huntster]

I’d not call your “buddy” a homosexual either, would you?...

I call him an idiot. His immorality got him into that situation.

It is a sexual orientation, not a sexual action.

Engaging in sex with one of the same gender is a homosexual act. Now, since my co-worker was unaware that his sex partner was another man, I would say that he isn't "oriented" to be homosexual, but he engaged in a homosexual act anyway, because he's an idiot.

I mean, if someone was coerced with violence or death while in prison to perform a homosexual act, you’d say they were gay?

No. I would say that they were raped by a homosexual.

I know, to, say, save the life of another I’d perform a heterosexual sex act, if I could, but that would change nothing about my sexual orientation.

Yet, you would be performing "a heterosexual sex act", wouldn't you?

Nope. I call a woman who never engages in homosexuality a heterosexual.

So you have no one word to distinguish between women who are attracted only to women and women who are attracted only to men?

Not if they don't engage in sexual acts.

The dictionary does. But to you they are both heterosexuals, only one is tempted with sin? And why, when you feel the exact same attraction, is it not “tempted with sin”?

You've got me.

Okay. "Orientation" is the key word (even though I have a strong objection to it and that concept).

Correct. Just like when you become so angry with someone, and you're tempted to whip their ass (but don't) means you haven't committed battery.

Sure, but you still felt it; you even have a name for people who feel it often: hothead, firebrand, etc. You still have a particular temperament, regardless of what you do.

But if I don't committ the act, I am not "a batterer", "murderer", "thief", etc.

One does not become homosexual by temptation any more than one becomes a murderer that way.

Not according to the dictionary, and I don’t think the RCC is clear here.

Seems clear to me:

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

One becomes homosexual by acting out that temptation, just like a murderer becomes a murderer by acting out that temptation, just like a thief/fornicator/liar/etc.............................

Nice. See what I meant about the inevitability of offence? If your moral framework puts all that stuff together with consenting homosexual sex, I say you would succeed in vilifying homosexuality, the aim, but you also trivialize murder.

I have not trivialized anything. It is you trivializing immoral sex, which then trivializes everything else.

That damned slippery slope again.............

I also have to wonder, from the RCC’s viewpoint, would you think homosexuals living together, raising adopted kids, and so on, but not having sex, sinning?

No. IMO, if they are not having sex, they are not homosexuals.

Are they even homosexuals to the RCC, in your opinion?

Again, as I understand the RCC position, if they do not engage in sexual acts, they are merely people living in temptation, but succeeding gloriously in their call to chastity, every bit as much as a pedophile who does not engage in sex with children, or an unmarried person who abstains from sex outside of marriage:

...By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

[Upchurch]

Just to avoid a semantic argument, I assume we both understand that legally, it means whatever the legislature and courts say it means, and you aren't looking for a discussion of whether or not we each have an understanding of current marriage law. I'm assuming you are asking what I think legal marriage ought to be.

Well, I meant currently, but let's go with it.

{snip}

In other words, all of the privileges the government bestows upon married people are things you get because you need them in order to keep the obligations of marriage. It's the obligations that matter, not the privileges.

You set up an then promptly disassembled nearly every obligation you mentioned. And what you didn't disassemble is nearly enough the present state of legal marriage (to the best of my knowledge and with a few variances here and there). More interestingly, none of it is gender specific enough to exclude same sex couples.

The biggest exception I take to your definition, and this is really an off-topic tangent, is the concept of legally enforced sex. You said celibacy is fine in the relationship as long as everyone is in agreement. But lets say that sometime after the marriage contract is formed, one side of the contract decides that s/he no longer wishes to engage in sexual relations with his/her spouse. According to your set up here, the "wronged" party can seek damages. This amounts to "have sex or else".

I am really horrified to think of the government having this much power in our personal lives.

 

[pgwenthold]

The biggest exception I take to your definition, and this is really an off-topic tangent, is the concept of legally enforced sex. You said celibacy is fine in the relationship as long as everyone is in agreement. But lets say that sometime after the marriage contract is formed, one side of the contract decides that s/he no longer wishes to engage in sexual relations with his/her spouse. According to your set up here, the "wronged" party can seek damages. This amounts to "have sex or else".

I am really horrified to think of the government having this much power in our personal lives.

In principle, it's not that they can seek damages, but the government does allow this to be a reason for dissolution of the marriage contract. If one person wants to have sex, and the other does not, it sounds like reasonable grounds for disolving the contract for me.

Yeah, you could describe it as "have sex or else," but it's not a sex dependent property. For example, similar grounds could be given that one partner shows up with a dog one day, and the other doesn't want one. If it caused a breakup of the marriage, it would be a case of the government saying, "Have a dog or else"? Not really.

 

[Upchurch]

Which religions [who are in favor of SSM] might those be?

Well, for instance:

• Unitarian Universalist
• Episcopalians
• United Church of Christ
• and a number of others

eta: forgot Reform Judaism
eta2: and the Metropolitan Community Church

One of the biggest PR jobs going is that the Religious Right is representative of American religions when it is really just a very well organized and very vocal fringe.

And the (Christian) Church of Latter Day Saints defined marriage as being between one man and as many women as he pleased, and pressure from government put an end to that.

Is it right that the government control religion in this fashion?

What's more, I don't remember a national campaign from that group demanding their that their religious rights be honored.

What does that matter as to whether it is right or wrong?

Do you think that might have something to do with the concept of "majority will"?

Remember this when we get back to the "Tyranny of the Majority" in this later post:

---------------------------------------------

And yet, you support a law that prevents the free exercise of religion.

No, I do not. I support laws regulating behavior, regardless if some have religious beliefs which allow them to behave in some ways.

No? But you do favor a law that specifically favors one set of religions' views about homosexuality over others, correct?

And should the US Government base a law preventing SSM on, in your opinion?

If the majority of citizens or legislators vote that way, yes.

Ah, more "majority will", correct?

This is called the tyranny of the majority and it is why we have a checks and balances system in our government....

1) I am not "the majority"
2) My opinion is not law (nor does it have the authority of reality....see sig lines below)
3) Constitutional amendments are part of those "checks and balances"

Ah, here we are.

When you appeal to the will of the majority to oppress the minority, this has been called the tyranny of the majority.

1) You may not be "the majority", but you have certainly have implied that government promotion of some religions over others "may have something to do with 'majority will'".
2) Thank Ed.
3) The federal government was set up in such as to protect itself and its citizens form the fad whims of the people. Amending the constitution as a means of circumnavigating those safeguards is entirely anti-American.

 

[Upchurch]

In principle, it's not that they can seek damages, but the government does allow this to be a reason for dissolution of the marriage contract. If one person wants to have sex, and the other does not, it sounds like reasonable grounds for disolving the contract for me.

yeah, but Meadmaker is talking in terms of legal obligations and enforcement.

 

[Meadmaker]

yeah, but Meadmaker is talking in terms of legal obligations and enforcement.

No, pwengthold is absolutely correct. Like every other contract, the government's role is to enforce the contract when one of the parties seeks to enforce the contract. If no one complains that the contract has been violated, the government stays out.

It's not like I'm wanting nessoeih or something.




I have a question. You described marriage as having no legal obligations, and then I described something with lots of legal obligations, and you only had one problem with what I described. What gives? Isn't that a contradiction?


And, what did I disassemble? I wasn't aware I was disassembling anything.

 

[Upchurch]

No, pwengthold is absolutely correct. Like every other contract, the government's role is to enforce the contract when one of the parties seeks to enforce the contract. If no one complains that the contract has been violated, the government stays out.

Well, than wait a minute. I thought you were saying that without government enforcement, marriage was meaningless. Now you're talking about civil actions, not criminal actions.

How is that any different than what I was talking about earlier? All the stuff that you called "unbelievable"?

I have a question. You described marriage as having no legal obligations, and then I described something with lots of legal obligations, and you only had one problem with what I described. What gives? Isn't that a contradiction?

Well, that's what I'm uncertain about.

And, what did I disassemble? I wasn't aware I was disassembling anything.

Well, sure you did. You listed a long list of obligations, but then you went through and explained how they can't be or shouldn't be legal obligations:

Do you GROOM'S NAME take BRIDE'S NAME to be your wife – to live together after God’s ordinance – in the holy estate of matrimony? Will you love her, comfort her, honor and keep her, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sadness and in joy, to cherish and continually bestow upon her your heart’s deepest devotion, forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto her as long as you both shall live?

That was the set up (the short version), here was the disassemble:

Now, this is a legal contract between two persons. If they both understand that they want to have a slightly different view, ok. I'm liberal. You don't like that "forsaking all others" clause? Ok. Fine. You can each waive it. Who am I to judge. But, each person has to understand what's being waived here. And that's true about the celibacy, too. If you don't want to have sex, that's fine, as long as everyone finds it agreeable. There's some property you want to hold back: Ok. Sign the prenuptual. Everyone understands it, then.

Til death do us part?: Well, it's a contract between two people. If they each want to let each other out, ok. If you can work out something mutually agreeable. Just like every other contract. However, if you can't work out any agreement, then you're stuck. In other words, no fault divorce, if and only if both parties agree.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Which religions [who are in favor of SSM] might those be?

Well, for instance:
Unitarian Universalist
Episcopalians
United Church of Christ
and a number of others

eta: forgot Reform Judaism
eta2: and the Metropolitan Community Church

Well, then. You have established that this is not a Christian issue.

One of the biggest PR jobs going is that the Religious Right is representative of American religions when it is really just a very well organized and very vocal fringe.

You now confirm that observation.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
And the (Christian) Church of Latter Day Saints defined marriage as being between one man and as many women as he pleased, and pressure from government put an end to that.

Is it right that the government control religion in this fashion?

Is is control of religion, or control of marriage?

By demanding a legal re-definition of marriage, isn't the homosexual community confirming the government's power over the institution?

Originally Posted by Huntster :
What's more, I don't remember a national campaign from that group demanding their that their religious rights be honored.

What does that matter as to whether it is right or wrong?

Because if it was wrong, perhaps they came to realize that, and were willing to accept it.

Or maybe they were just savvy:

Citing revelation, Woodruff issued the 1890 Manifesto which ended polygamy or plural marriage in the Territory of Utah and directed Latter-day Saints only to enter into marriages that are recognized by the laws in the areas in which they reside. He wrote in his diary, I have arrived at the point in the history of my life as the president of the Church...where I am under the necessity of acting for the temporal salvation of the Church.... (Wilford Woodruff-Diary, Sept. 25, 1890). Some historians consider this policy statement his most important contribution to the stability of the church.

Despite the Manifesto, historians such as D. Michael Quinn, B. Carmon Hardy, and Richard S. VanWagoner assert that Woodruff continued to secretly encourage, or at least allow, plural marriages until his death in places where such marriages could legally be performed, such as Mexico.

Originally Posted by Upchurch :
And yet, you support a law that prevents the free exercise of religion.

No, I do not. I support laws regulating behavior, regardless if some have religious beliefs which allow them to behave in some ways.

No? But you do favor a law that specifically favors one set of religions' views about homosexuality over others, correct?

Again, I support laws regulating behavior, regardless if some have religious beliefs which allow them to behave in some ways.

Originally Posted by Upchurch :
And should the US Government base a law preventing SSM on, in your opinion?

If the majority of citizens or legislators vote that way, yes.

Ah, more "majority will", correct?

Unfortunately, yes.

...The federal government was set up in such as to protect itself and its citizens form the fad whims of the people. Amending the constitution as a means of circumnavigating those safeguards is entirely anti-American.

Only when it is done to circumvent a fad that you support?

What about the previous amendments? The ones I don't like?

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

I call him an idiot. His immorality got him into that situation.



Engaging in sex with one of the same gender is a homosexual act. Now, since my co-worker was unaware that his sex partner was another man, I would say that he isn't "oriented" to be homosexual, but he engaged in a homosexual act anyway, because he's an idiot.

No debate here.

No. I would say that they were raped by a homosexual.

Nor here, save for the fact the rapist is not necessarily a homosexual. Homosexuality implies at least a strong degree of exclusivity. The rapist may have nothing but heterosexual sex if given a choice (could even be in prison for raping women), but be bisexual enough to rape a man, once, if given no other option. I’d call him bisexual, if anything. If the TV is any indication , they even make the victim look more female.

Yet, you would be performing "a heterosexual sex act", wouldn't you?

Yes, that would best describe the action to another. I’d be a homosexual performing a heterosexual sex act. But not a heterosexual.

You've got me.

Okay. "Orientation" is the key word (even though I have a strong objection to it and that concept).

Let me be clear. There are homosexuals, not having sex then?

Anyway I’m curious as to why? Why a strong objection? Isn’t it an accurate word? Doesn’t the concept best describe some phenomena in the real world?

Seems to me it may be the politically correct concerns (of both the left and right) that make perfectly accurate words like this useless and/or so loaded people hate using them, but may be wrong.

But if I don't committ the act, I am not "a batterer", "murderer", "thief", etc.

Sure. We can have words for both firebrands, and batterers.

Seems clear to me:

The way I read it, “homosexuality” is significantly different from a “homosexual person” to the RCC. That sentence basically says homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who are homosexual persons. I mean, otherwise it’d be the case that the RCC thinks “Homosexuality doesn’t refer to sexual relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the opposite sex.”, say, if they did it for pay, not attraction. And I’m pretty sure they’d say that’s a sin of homosexuality, not to mention a couple others, even if they are not “homosexual persons”.

I have not trivialized anything. It is you trivializing immoral sex, which then trivializes everything else.

That damned slippery slope again.............

Sure, like how you trivialize murder by drinking coffee. Every time someone drinks a cup, the LDS murder rate pops up. Or when you do the same for orthodox Jews, by eating shellfish, or mix the wrong fabrics in your attire.

As is well established, I think favoring your left hand is immoral [sneers at Upchurch] . I believe it on faith, and that’s the end of debate on its moral status. I take murder as immoral for the same reason. The two are together on a list of sinful things, and I see no problem with equating the two. You want left-handed scissors? You may as well stab your neighbor with them (No, I’m not trivializing murder). I’m just fine using scissors; I’m right handed. Furthermore, every time anyone [sneers at Upchurch again] uses left-handed scissors, I know they are trivializing everything else, like rape and murder and so on.

Really Huntster, don’t you find it odd that all you the other stuff you listed just happens to break the golden rule? At least they are also in the 10 commandments.

You want to fight immoral sex? So do I. I’m ardently against sex that spreads death and disease. You want to find a link to murder, look at those with AIDS knowingly having promiscuous sex while lying or staying quiet about their status. I’m also openly opposed to any sex that could produce an unwanted pregnancy.

But it can’t be an arbitrary line. To you, could God just make any thing moral or immoral by placing it in the Bible or instructing a religious leader/institution? He could just, say, make rape a moral imperative and you’d be telling us that those who don’t rape trivialize murder (or trivialize homosexuality)? There has to be some rhyme or reason.

Also, you really have no idea what I trivialize or don’t on this one, right? I know I really don’t know what you mean exactly when you use the word “sex” there (not that I want to, though). I’ve had an atheist opponent tell me sex can only happen between a man and woman, and I’ve certainly had many others assume over and over again incorrectly about what sex should mean to me. It really isn’t something anyone should be speculating about or making public, anyway.

No. IMO, if they are not having sex, they are not homosexuals.

Great, it’s not gay marriage then, and they can get the SS of their partner when they pass then?

Again, as I understand the RCC position, if they do not engage in sexual acts, they are merely people living in temptation, but succeeding gloriously in their call to chastity, every bit as much as a pedophile who does not engage in sex with children, or an unmarried person who abstains from sex outside of marriage:

Huh.

What’s so frustrating is that homosexual sex is coming off as far more important to you than it is to me. I’d be far less than succeeding gloriously to allow it to fade out of my life completely; I’d trade you altogether for marriage rights, if you had the power. We simply don't have the same focus, and so we’ll keep on debating...