Marriage Debate

[Upchurch]

Look harder. The phrase "civil action" appears 8 times in the law. "Civil penalties" appears two additional times. If I recall (I didn't reread the whole bill, just searched for terms) the only reference to criminal penalties is to places where things that are already crimes, specifically fraud, are also made crimes when they occur as part of spam.

Lordy, it's like pulling teeth with you. It would be much easier if you actually provided sources for your claims rather than making me do your leg work for you.

I will grant you, there is a stipulation where a representative of a state can initate a civil suite on the behalf of its citizens. This surprises me. Touche.

Yes, fraud is already a crime, but this act defines certain kinds of spam as fraud making it criminal and specifying the punishment.

I guess we're going to cherry pick the speeding ticket away, huh?

And that's the problem in general. You aren't looking very hard. You're picking apart and trying to find little bits here and there, and quibbling about this and that, and inventing stuff, when in reality, my position is quite clear.

Inventing stuff? What have I invented? When I present claims I provide support for them. I was wrong about the CAMSPAM thing, but if you had looked at the site I had based the conlusion on, you'd have seen why. That isn't invention.

"Speeding tickets are civil infractions" and "wedding vows are legally binding" are inventions.

Because in the course of this, you and your fellow supporters are really alienating would-be allies. There are an awful lot of people out there who aren't bigots, but when confronted by a bunch of people who insist that anyone who differs from the gay rights agenda in the slightest can only do so because of bigotry, they decide to chuck you all in the soup and pull the "no" lever.

First of all, are you claiming that you aren't alienating would-be allies?

Second of all, what exactly is the "gay rights agenda"? Who set this agenda? I smell another unsupported claim waiting to become a straw man.

Take Huntster. He's not a bigot. He's a Catholic. If you can't tell the difference between the two, it's because you're a bigot.

Are you claiming that being catholic and pro-SSM is mutually exclusive? (source)

This gap exists for Catholics as well: Catholics oppose gay marriage by a plurality of 48%, but those with high religious commitment oppose it by 66%.

One's religion neither dictates their conscience nor their sense of justice. Catholics, especially American Catholics have broken with the pope a number of times on a number of issues.

You are the gay marriage movement's greatest enemy.

Because I argue that people should not impose their religious beliefs on others in accordance with the constitution of this country? Because I ask people to rely on reason and logic as a basis for their decisions rather than what an authority figure tells them what to think?

If these things are the enemy of the gay marriage movement, then the gay marriage movement is based on the wrong things.

ETA: P.S. The speeding ticket was a bad example, because it involves specifically government action against an individual. But I'll bet if you tried hard, you would have been able to see through that to the point of the post.

Oops. This appeared between when I read the post and when I hit the reply button.

I bet if you tried real hard, you could articulate your argument in a clear manner and support it with evidence. Until then, I'll just have to go with what you actually say rather than what you later claim you meant.

 

[Upchurch]

Hunster and Meadmaker, thank goodness we don't have your world of dictated moral behavior. I prefer the government stay out of my personal life as much as possible.

Amen.

Why do the wrongs you cite need be addressed by courts and police?

My question also.

 

[Meadmaker]

Why do the wrongs you cite need be addressed by courts and police?

I don't know how to divide property without court intervention. Of course, if the two parties agree, they can divide it however they wish.

Now, I answered a question for you. Let's have you answer one of mine. (It's a two parter) Was my forty year old friend wronged? Does she deserve compensation? (Compensation in this case would consist of a disproportionate share of joint property, and possibly alimony payments.)

 

[Meadmaker]

Are you claiming that being catholic and pro-SSM is mutually exclusive?

No. (Hmmm. You posted a link proving they aren't. Straw man? You decide.)

I am claiming that being anti-SSM is not proof of bigotry. ETA: I'm also claiming that holding traditional Catholic views about sexual morality, including the immoral nature of homosexual activity, is not proof of bigotry.

One's religion neither dictates their conscience nor their sense of justice. Catholics, especially American Catholics have broken with the pope a number of times on a number of issues.

Who brought up the pope? (Straw man? You decide.)

Because I argue that people should not impose their religious beliefs on others in accordance with the constitution of this country?

Straw man? You decide.

Because I ask people to rely on reason and logic as a basis for their decisions rather than what an authority figure tells them what to think?

I haven't seen anyone citing authority figures telling them what to think. Straw man? You decide.

If these things are the enemy of the gay marriage movement, then the gay marriage movement is based on the wrong things.

The enemy of the gay marriage movement is the mischaracterization of people who have religious beliefs different from your own, and the labelling of those people, or other people who support traditional views, as bigots. A lot of those people who generally are supportive of gay rights see within the gay rights movement an element that is hostile to their beliefs and/or values, not just in the area of gay rights, but in many other ways. That makes them less likely to support the gay rights, for fear of supporting the rest of the anti-religious agenda.

And if you don't understand that, pull some more teeth until you do. Open the ears and grasp what they're saying, instead of blathering about the pope and the constitution.

(There was plenty of other stuff in your message. If you'd like to see a response to anything in particular. Ask.)

 

[Upchurch]

No. (Hmmm. You posted a link proving they aren't. Straw man? You decide.)

No, providing evidence for my claim. You might try it sometime.

I am claiming that being anti-SSM is not proof of bigotry. ETA: I'm also claiming that holding traditional Catholic views about sexual morality, including the immoral nature of homosexual activity, is not proof of bigotry.

{snip}

Who brought up the pope? (Straw man? You decide.)

{snip}

I haven't seen anyone citing authority figures telling them what to think. Straw man? You decide.

Pop quiz: Why do the traditional Catholic views hold homosexuality to be immoral?

The enemy of the gay marriage movement is the mischaracterization of people who have religious beliefs different from your own, and the labelling of those people, or other people who support traditional views, as bigots. A lot of those people who generally are supportive of gay rights see within the gay rights movement an element that is hostile to their beliefs and/or values, not just in the area of gay rights, but in many other ways. That makes them less likely to support the gay rights, for fear of supporting the rest of the anti-religious agenda.

I got to thinking about what you said about easing folks like Huntster into the idea of gay marriage rather rushing into it. After all, aren't civil unions seperate but just as equal? Maybe we can come up with a set of laws that especially for gay couples, maybe "Jim Queer" laws?

You're right. Huntster isn't a bigot, he just belongs to an organization that views gays as unnatural and immoral. His vocal support of that view only speaks to his faithfulness to that organization, not to bigotry.

I'll follow your example. I'll be quiet. I won't push back in the face of injustice. We'll lightely suggest that people do something that is not quite as much of the wrong thing as what they're doing now.

I can't quite remember who it was that said

In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

or

When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative.

or

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

or

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

But, man, what an enemy of equality and justice he was!

Thank you for setting me straight on the matter.

 

[Meadmaker]

Upchurch,

Your grasp of Catholicism strikes me as weak. If you would like me to address any specific point of your message, ask.

 

[Upchurch]

If you would like me to address any specific point of your message, ask.

Yes, why are Catholics against gay marriage?

 

[Meadmaker]

I'll look up a more definitive answer, but here's an off the cuff response. Catholic doctrine holds that the purpose of human sexuality is primarily the production of offspring. This purpose should only be pursued within the context of marriage. God established marriage as between a man and a woman. Support for this view is found in scripture, such as in Leviticus where homosexuality is condemned, and possibly in the writings of Saint Paul. (Among those condemned are something that my Bible translates as "effeminates".)

As for the fellow with the quotes, wasn't he a Baptist?

ETA: Heres a more complete answer:

http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

(No Pope's opinion is mentioned on the subject, although I think we can safely say what it is, without even looking it up.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know how to divide property without court intervention. Of course, if the two parties agree, they can divide it however they wish.

Now, I answered a question for you. Let's have you answer one of mine. (It's a two parter) Was my forty year old friend wronged? Does she deserve compensation? (Compensation in this case would consist of a disproportionate share of joint property, and possibly alimony payments.)

As to how to divide property and settle other disputes like child custody arrangements that's where the courts jurisdiction lies and that's what the courts settle today.

As to the question, "was my friend wronged?" and what if any should be the remedy, that's a civil matter separate from the divorce proceedings. If you want the courts involved in this matter then the question becomes, where do you draw the limits? If the couple live together for years but don't marry and one cheats, if they are engaged but not living together and one cheats, and taking it further, suppose my neighbor causes me emotional pain by telling everyone he slept with me when he didn't and so on.

There is a current system of legal liability which is pretty limited in providing remedies for emotional pain unless there is concomitant physical damage or other measurable financial loss.

You think the courts are tied up now, how would they be if we added liability for every broken heart? And how would you prove or disprove a claim like, "she told me I should cheat and she hasn't had sex with me for years" and so on? I would imagine the difficulty in proving similar claims was what prompted lawmakers to change to no fault divorce laws in the first place but I don't really know.

Nice as it would be to sue the bastard, it isn't practical and one just can't remedy everything by a lawsuit. My partner walked out after 6 years when I got pregnant. I got a crappy settlement for child support because he lied about his income and had a better lawyer. But I did get some satisfaction turning over evidence of his real income to the IRS. They caught up with him. I have never gone back to court for more child support because it would cost another 5 grand in attorney's fees and I wouldn't recover that much for years.

But, hey, the house was mine before we met and his name was never added to the title so it's still mine. I have a decent income and I've done alright, (more than most divorced women can claim). So it is just a fact of life. Some people pick bad partners, some get cancer, and some win the lottery. Life isn't fair. Mommy can't help you your whole life and neither can other third parties like the courts.

 

[Upchurch]

Catholic doctrine holds that the purpose of human sexuality is primarily the production of offspring. This purpose should only be pursued within the context of marriage. God established marriage as between a man and a woman. Support for this view is found in scripture, such as in Leviticus where homosexuality is condemned, and possibly in the writings of Saint Paul. (Among those condemned are something that my Bible translates as "effeminates".)

And who holds the responsibility for interpreting doctrine and setting dogma for the Church?

 

[Meadmaker]

As to the question, "was my friend wronged?" and what if any should be the remedy, that's a civil matter separate from the divorce proceedings.

Unquestionably, under today's law, you're right. You shouldn't be right, but you're right.

Divorce court is a civil court, and in my humble opinion, when dividing assets they ought to be able to take into account who is at fault.

I want to emphasize something. My opinion is not based on the morality, or lack thereof, of the man's actions. Instead, it is based on the fact that the woman made specific choices based on a reasonable expectation that the man would keep the promises he made. (And it certainly isn't a religious thing. They were both neopagans.) Because of those choices, and his failure, she will face both economic hardship and emotional trauma. I don't think it's reasonable to tell her, "Too bad. Get over it."

As for your own situation, and I don't want to make this too personal, it is unfortunate that marriage would have offered little protection from abandonment or the associated economic hardships. Your situation illustrates that it really is an "Every woman for herself" world we live in. You obviously had substantial abilities and resources which allowed you to land on your feet. Not everyone is so blessed, as the poverty rate for women who have children but no husband demonstrates.

 

[Meadmaker]

And who holds the responsibility for interpreting doctrine and setting dogma for the Church?

That's a complicated question, but the key word in it is "interpreting". For example, on the subject of gay marriage, the Pope would oppose gay marriage because Catholic doctrine has always opposed it.

Your comments and attitude regarding the Catholic Church strike me as bigoted. That's just my opinion. Ultimately, it's a question only you can answer.

 

[Darat]

That's a complicated question, but the key word in it is "interpreting". For example, on the subject of gay marriage, the Pope would oppose gay marriage because Catholic doctrine has always opposed it.

That's circular reasoning.

Your comments and attitude regarding the Catholic Church strike me as bigoted. That's just my opinion. Ultimately, it's a question only you can answer.

Why bigoted?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That's a complicated question, but the key word in it is "interpreting". For example, on the subject of gay marriage, the Pope would oppose gay marriage because Catholic doctrine has always opposed it.

Your comments and attitude regarding the Catholic Church strike me as bigoted. That's just my opinion. Ultimately, it's a question only you can answer.

It's not bigoted, it's critical. Just because someone points out that there is something wrong with something you like, that doesn't make the person a bigot.

 

[Upchurch]

Your comments and attitude regarding the Catholic Church strike me as bigoted. That's just my opinion. Ultimately, it's a question only you can answer.

Perhaps you should review the definition of "bigot".

I would be bigoted against the Catholic Church if I hated or discriminated against people because they were Catholic. This is simply not the case. Not only do I work and hang out with a number of Catholics, but I live in St. Louis. You can't throw a rock in this town during Lent without hitting some place that's offering a fish fry. This would be an awfully stupid place to live for someone who was bigoted against Catholics.

Now, given that one can be Catholic and not hate or discriminate against gay people, what would you call someone who does hate or discriminate against gay people? Even if they use religious reasons to rationalize it?

I'd just like to also point out that, back in the day, both pro- and anti-abolitionists and, later, civil rights advocates used religious doctrine to support their respective causes. The KKK still do today. Should I not call a Klansman a bigot because he is only being faithful to his organization? Am I being bigoted against the KKK?

Maybe if I just keep quiet about it, we could slowly convince the KKK that racial equality and integration is a good thing. Not right away, of course, and certainly not all at once. Small steps, right?

 

[Meadmaker]

That's circular reasoning.

The Pope teaches Catholic doctrine. What do you suppose would happen if tomorrow, Benedict XVI said, "I've decided, based on revelation of the Holy Spirit, gay marriage is ok after all." Do you suppose Catholics would say, "Yes. Your Holiness. Let the wedding bells chime." No. They would say that the Pope had lost his marbles. It would be against Catholic doctrine, whether or not the Pope said it.

Why bigoted?

Comments like this one.

Because I ask people to rely on reason and logic as a basis for their decisions rather than what an authority figure tells them what to think?

He makes inaccurate and derogatory statements about Catholics. And yes, some of his best friends are Catholics. I understand that. I still bet he wouldn't want his daughter to marry one.


ETA: If you equate "I think homosexual acts are immoral" and "I hate homosexuals", I wouldn't argue with you. That doesn't mean I think it's necessarily correct to equate the two. I know plenty of Catholics who think that homosexual acts are immoral and/or unnatural. I don't think that's the same as hating homosexuals. Your opinion may differ.

 

[Upchurch]

He makes inaccurate and derogatory statements about Catholics.

That wasn't a derogatory statement about Catholics. That was a derogatory statement about people who don't think for themselves, but blindly follow what others tell them. I'll admit I have a problem with that and see it as a character flaw.

And yes, some of his best friends are Catholics. I understand that. I still bet he wouldn't want his daughter to marry one.

Oh? What kind of bet are we talking about here? I'll take a little bit of that action.

Of course, not having a daughter nor would I be in control of whom she wanted to marry, we can't really test your theory directly. How about I offer into evidence that I've dated a Catholic girl myself? Two, actually, as well as a Jewish girl, a Baptist girl, a DOC girl, a fundamentalist evangelical girl, and I married a Unitarian.

No, you'll have to find some other aspect of my personality if you're going to try to discredit me with a bit of bigotry judo.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

ETA: If you equate "I think homosexual acts are immoral" and "I hate homosexuals", I wouldn't argue with you. That doesn't mean I think it's necessarily correct to equate the two. I know plenty of Catholics who think that homosexual acts are immoral and/or unnatural. I don't think that's the same as hating homosexuals. Your opinion may differ.

I see hate defined “intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury”.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hate

Intense is certainly a matter of opinion.

The hostility towards homosexuals, though, is clear in thinking homosexual acts are immoral and/or unnatural.

You, Dave, once compared physical intimacy to the need to eat. I wouldn’t go that far, but it is important to most all humans. It instinctually builds a sense of unity, not to mention satiates a drive near hunger. But companionship, the innate drive to couple up with the person you love and build a family, I see that as right up there with eating. I’d risk my life gladly for that.

To think homosexuals shouldn’t have those things or they should do it in a way unnatural and repellant to them because they have certain anatomy, that is hostility towards homosexuals. Is it not?

Wouldn’t you call me hostile if I insisted that you have sex with and build a home with a man for me to consider you moral? What if a person did that to their heterosexual son? Wouldn’t that be hostile?

I hesitate to say it, because it kind of reveals a double standard I may have, but I’d personally call the homosexual who did that hateful, bigoted, and evil.

Still, if it ends at just thinking it, then be hostile till your heart is content. If it means restricting your neighbors or family from these acts, the sort of acts you and/or most every heterosexual enjoys, then there is a problem (Yes, a problem that Huntster, for one, doesn’t seem to have in way of sex acts). Who cares if the problem is called bigotry, hate, or whatever? Those words have lost potency and meaning, anyway, with the frequency they’ve been misused.

Tell me if and where you disagree Dave but, to me, the issues of hate and bigotry all go back to that same notion of love. Love the sinner; hate the sin… Marriage is only about love… It’s the same issue.

To me (and I think, so far, to you), love requires something of you, some action, some sacrifice, and obligation to step outside your self. You can’t just get away with holding the warm fuzzy feelings. You can’t just feel for your wife, or just love your sinner and feel all good about yourself for that. To me that is a selfish sort of love. Instead, you must sacrifice your wants and consider their wants as your own, to love someone. You must put yourself in their place, and ask of them what you’d expect in return. To hate, you do the opposite, and knowingly hurt people in a way you’d not want for yourself.

To me, when there is zero sacrifice behind your “love” or you think the focus of your “love” should be limited and hurt in ways so vital to our humanity, in ways you’d not want for yourself, that is nearer to cruel ambivalence and hate than love. Do you disagree?

 

[Huntster]

...Take Huntster. He's not a bigot. He's a Catholic. If you can't tell the difference between the two, it's because you're a bigot. Huntster will never support gay marriage, it's true, but I'll bet that if you would stop insulting him and listen to what he's saying, you might get him to civil unions that are nearly identical to marriage, and you would certainly get him to the point of allowing gay people to live their lives as they wish without government interference, which would be darned near as good....

Yup, on all points.

And if you could get Huntster to that point, you could get 51% of most states at least as far as Vermont-style civil unions. And if that's not good enough for you as a first step, you deserve to lose.

Yup, again, on all points.

You are the gay marriage movement's greatest enemy.

Yup.

Don't count on any change on the pro-SSM political and ideological front, though.

I think you can see why in this thread.

 

[Huntster]

Hunster and Meadmaker, thank goodness we don't have your world of dictated moral behavior. I prefer the government stay out of my personal life as much as possible....

You have no idea how thankful you don't live in my world. I came to this wilderness thirty years ago precisely to escape your world. Unfortunately, there are plenty of "cultural refugees" flooding into this place now, ironically bringing their ideological garbage with them, which was the very thing which caused them to leave in disgust.

It's a social psychological phenomenon that simply blows me away...........

Very few people claim to be more skeptical and reject government than Alaskans, yet plenty of Alaskans still run crying to government when they think they can use government to impose their will on their neighbor, or if they think government can shake down their neighbor for a few bucks to share.

"More elbow room, cried the Huntster.........."

Why do the wrongs you cite need be addressed by courts and police?

They don't, but they damned sure will.

It's like going to your mom and whining, "Johny won't let me play." At some point mom needs to let Johny deal with it alone.

I'd as soon leave Johnny alone if he doesn't want to play, and if Johnny tries to stop me from playing alone, I'd whip his ass.

The world isn't fair. Get over it.

I have. Long ago.

Have you?

Are you sure?