Here's an article from Reason on-line detailing the experience of two MA men who recently married . (The article is blatantly pro-SSM, for any opponents who might be bothered by that).
Two quotes from the article got my attention because they go to the heart of my opposition to legalized SSM.
quote:Every relationship of love is holy, sacred, and worthy of public affirmation and celebration ..... I wanted the stability, I wanted the companionship, I wanted to have a sex life that was accepted, I wanted to have kids.
I believe the primary reason for marriage is a public affirmation of the sex/love relationship, as was pointed out by the pastor in the first quote and one of the grooms in the second. How can I support SSM, if it's primary purpose is to signal my acceptance of a sex life that I don't actually accept? Wouldn't it be hypocricy on my part to say I'm alright with something when I'm not?
Because the purpose of institutionalized marriage is symbolic, I don't find first amendment arguments ala starLisa persuasive. The whole point of marriage on a community level is to reflect the community's acceptance of the couple. Therefore to say I shouldn't raise my voice in opposition is to violate the very purpose of institutionalized marriage. Regardless of how I formed my opinion, whether for religious reasons or not, my opinion and acceptance is precisely what is being sought. On one hand to say, "we want your opinion, your acceptance" and then to say, "as long as it's not religiously based" seems disingenuous.
Finally, my apologies for starting a new SSM thread. I had a hard time following the two or three going last week. But I thought the article would be interesting to people on both sides. I could post an alternative narrative (to the Reason article) based on the gay marriage I attended last May, but that will have to wait for another time.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Part of the difficulty is the difference between "community" and "country/government".
Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of distributing sacraments or giving symbolic approval of anyone's sexual relationship. Government can be in the business of validating contractual relationships. Since they do that for some people, they should do it for everyone.
Communities - churches, families, friends - can then bestow whatever sacramental or symbolic blessing they so choose.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
The groom you quoted:
quote:I wanted the stability, I wanted the companionship, I wanted to have a sex life that was accepted,
1. I wanted the stability 2. I wanted the companionship 3. I wanted to have a sex life that was accepted.
Senoj:
quote:I believe the primary reason for marriage is a public affirmation of the sex/love relationship, as was pointed out by the pastor in the first quote and one of the grooms in the second.
quote:How can I support SSM, if its primary purpose is to signal my acceptance of a sex life that I don't actually accept?
Since the sex life is listed third by the groom and makes up up only one part of why he said he wanted to be married I'm not sure you can really use him as an example of SSM being primarily interested in affirmation of sex.
The pastor didn't mention sex, only love.
I understand your argument, but I don't think your evidence is at all supportive.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Teshi-
The reason I didn't mention the others (there were actually three more) was because I felt they could all be achieved external to marriage. I didn't feel the groom was offering them in order of preference, either, so saying he mentioned it third doesn't mean it isn't the primary reason (for him or me).
And I did say the sex/love relationship, specifically because the pastor didn't mention sex
As for more evidence, I can only point to the numerous news interviews here in MA with recently married SS couples. Every one mentioned the social acceptance aspect as a factor in the desire to get married. Almost none mentioned hospital visitation or inheritance rights.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I don't think the primary reason behind individual gay couples fight for legal same-sex marriage is community acceptance. For one, "community acceptance" marriages are already being performed by a variety of communities, both religious and not. Besides that, a gay couple would have to be extremely naive to think that a civil SSM in the current climate would bring any kind of automatic acceptance. So basically gays can already have a community accepted marriage as far as that really matters.
On the other hand, acceptance of gays as legitimate participants in society at large probably will be fostered by the institution of SSM. I see why some people fear this and I'm sorry that they feel that way. But in the matter of civil marriages most of the discussion I've heard among the gay community has been about security and equal treatment of their relationship in civil terms. (i.e. visiting rights, inheritance issues, etc.) So I don't agree that public acceptance is anywhere near the primary issue.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Teshi-
The reason I didn't mention the others (there were actually three more) was because I felt they could all be achieved external to marriage. I didn't feel the groom was offering them in order of preference, either, so saying he mentioned it third doesn't mean it isn't the primary reason (for him or me).
And I did say the sex/love relationship, specifically because the pastor didn't mention sex
As for more evidence, I can only point to the numerous news interviews here in MA with recently married SS couples. Every one mentioned the social acceptance aspect as a factor in the desire to get married. Almost none mentioned hospital visitation or inheritance rights.
Interesting that we have such completely different experiences with the discussions. All I can offer is that mine are un-filtered, un-edited conversations with friends. I can't speak for anything you saw or read on TV or newspapers, nor for any agenda behind the producers of such.
As for all other things being acheived external to marriage, perhaps they can be. I, personally, don't think they should have to be and that is the principle upon which I am on the pro-SSM side. I could care less about whether the people next door recognize my marriage as long as the courts, hospitals, and my employer have to.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Karl-
You certainly have more insight into the community than I do. If it's really about visiting rights and inheritance issues, though, do you think the gay community would be satisfied with civil unions (if separate but equal issues were overcome)? Or do they need the word "marriage"? I think there's importance in the word, and I think that importance is all about social acceptance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I should point out again that this is why I think we should remove the word "marriage" from the realm of government altogether.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Do you think that in such and event regular people would and/or should use the word "marriage" however they like?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Twinky-
Was that question for Tom (presumably)?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yes. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This is actually why I do not support SSM.
People can do whatever they want, and I'm wholly against legislating against adults' sex lives.
However, legalizing SSM is asking me, for my part in society, to publicly approve and agree to support. You can do whatever you want, but you can't demand that I support you. When given the choice of whether to support your choice or not, I will vote no.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Do you think that in such and event regular people would and/or should use the word "marriage" however they like?
Absolutely. And if two people disagreed over the use of the word "marriage," they could argue about it.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Tom-
What if one of the arguants were a hospital attendant and the other were a concerned "spouse"? Or "parent" (another governmentally regulated relationship).
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Karl-
You certainly have more insight into the community than I do. If it's really about visiting rights and inheritance issues, though, do you think the gay community would be satisfied with civil unions (if separate but equal issues were overcome)? Or do they need the word "marriage"? I think there's importance in the word, and I think that importance is all about social acceptance.
Well, the truth is that many people in the gay community are ok with civil unions. The most vocal part lately has been saying that CU are not enough (citing "separate but equal" issues, etc.), and I largely agree with them. And I'll admit that I am fighting for acceptance. Not in the sense that people must believe what I do is right, but certainly in the sense that I have the right to be what I am and do the things I do. I can't even have that basic level of freedom without some degree of acceptance.
I do think allowing SSM will increase the general level of acceptance in society, (and I think that's a good thing), but I think that is a fringe benefit rather than a core reason for fighting for it.
On the other hand, there are also many gay people who roll their eyes when another gay couple gets "married". Some of them see this as a sub-urbanization of gay life or a sort of "keeping up with the Joneses". Others have simply rejected the whole married-with-kids lifestyle. Some others are glad to be free of that kind of commitment. To me, it seems that these attitudes are far more dangerous to society than broadening the "definition" of marriage.
Homosexuality is pretty much out of the closet. I don't think many people think it is going back short of an Apocalypic cleansing of the Earth. Until such a time, which example would you rather see widespread: Homosexuality as a doorway to a commitment free, live for fun lifestyle, or gays as loving, committed couples working together with straight people to build strong communities?
I think some people would rather we retained the stigma of lonely party-animals who can't commit. I think they fear that if we're allowed to participate fully we might actually be better examples of fulfilled human beings than some of them are. I think it's too much of a challenge for some people's philosophy to be faced with a homosexual that isn't visibly a product of a wracked and ruined life of debauchery. There's a lot of truth to "by their fruit ye shall know them." It's inconvenient when a tree you don't like bears good fruit.
[ October 25, 2005, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: This is actually why I do not support SSM.
People can do whatever they want, and I'm wholly against legislating against adults' sex lives.
However, legalizing SSM is asking me, for my part in society, to publicly approve and agree to support. You can do whatever you want, but you can't demand that I support you. When given the choice of whether to support your choice or not, I will vote no.
BlackBlade chose not to answer this, but maybe you will katharina. In what way will your life be changed if SSMs are allowed? What exactly is entailed in your theoretical public approval and agreement to support? Is it the same kind of support you give to every other legal facet of society? If so, do you agree with all the other facets of society that you must also support in this way?
Do you agree with civil unions? If so, how would your support of them differ from your support of SSM? If not, do you think gays should be prevented from establishing themselves as couples within the limits of current law? (i.e. drawing up wills together, adopting where allowed, setting up legal partnerships, etc.) If you don't think these things should be prevented, in what way will SSM force you to support gays publicly that you aren't currently forced to do as a member of society now?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: What if one of the arguants were a hospital attendant and the other were a concerned "spouse"? Or "parent" (another governmentally regulated relationship).
Not a problem. Because while we wouldn't use the word "marriage" in any legal agreements, we'd use the phrase "civil union" to determine whether ANYONE had the right to visit their partner in the hospital, etc. So if the hospital attendant wants to use the phrase "partner" and the visitor prefers to use the term "wife," they can argue about it on their own.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Karl-
Thanks for your frank and open response.
Can your goal of acceptance of "the right to be what I am" be separated from "do the things I do"? Because that's what I see as the basic level of freedom and acceptance (and I think that's what's established in the 14th amendment).
And to answer some of the questions you addressed to katharina (not for her, obviously, but for me. katharina can answer for herself ): I think civil marriage is unique because of the primacy of acceptance. Other laws (blue laws, prohibition, etc.) have, to my mind, significantly less to do with public approval than public allowance. For that reason I would support repealing anti-sodomy laws but wouldn't support SSM. I'm unsure about CUs, adoption, etc.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Not a problem. Because while we wouldn't use the word "marriage" in any legal agreements, we'd use the phrase "civil union" to determine whether ANYONE had the right to visit their partner in the hospital, etc.
Whereas I would support a patient initiated and prioritized list of people s/he wanted allowed in, external to any governmentally sanctioned "union." Introducing CUs into the discussion requires definition of what exactly a CU consists of, and whether such issues could be resolved separate from a government recognition of any union.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Not a problem. Because while we wouldn't use the word "marriage" in any legal agreements, we'd use the phrase "civil union" to determine whether ANYONE had the right to visit their partner in the hospital, etc.
Whereas I would support a patient initiated and prioritized list of people s/he wanted allowed in, external to any governmentally sanctioned "union." Introducing CUs into the discussion requires definition of what exactly a CU consists of, and whether such issues could be resolved separate from a government recognition of any union.
Except that in many of the most important (to family members) cases, such a list very probably has no chance of being written up prior to very real issues of visitation. There are also issues of care decisions when a patient is incapacitated and thus unable to express who should/shouldn't have a say. Many of these are resolved by rules utilizing marriage as a tacit approval of decision making rights for spouses.
Or are you proposing that all people should have to have the foresight to make up visit lists and living wills prior to any potential need for them? Or is this only for gays?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
A "visiting list" only comes into play when the patient can't answer for themselves.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Senoj, I do want to interject that I am glad you are here at Hatrack. I really appreciate your sincere and frank answers to my questions (and those of others) as well. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
AAAAAAA!!
I just wrote a whole long post, and it was eaten. Now I need to rewrite it, but it will take me a minute. *sigh*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Whereas I would support a patient initiated and prioritized list of people s/he wanted allowed in, external to any governmentally sanctioned "union."
See, I don't think this is practical. If, for example, my wife were to fall ill unexpectedly, I would not take it well if I couldn't get in because she had just forgotten to fill out the "let Tom handle my affairs and visit me in the hospital" form. The ability to assume BY DEFAULT that two or more people can be mutually responsible for each other is the whole point of a civil union.
There's actually a whole body of legal precedent built around the idea of marriage that can be easily ported over to "civil unions" provided that we maintain the same legal assumptions. If we start questioning those assumptions, we'd have to go back through the laborious process of retrying all those bits of case law.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
One thing that tends to bother me in these discussion is that we tend to think of SSM marriage as being about sex. My assumption is that SSM is no more or less about sex than Different Sex Marriage.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: However, legalizing SSM is asking me, for my part in society, to publicly approve and agree to support. You can do whatever you want, but you can't demand that I support you. When given the choice of whether to support your choice or not, I will vote no.
With a nod to what KarlEd has already written, I'd like to chime in on my own and say that this logic really bothers me. I keep on seeing it on this forum and I don't understand, at all, where people are getting this idea that allowing something they disagree with somehow denotes them 'supporting', or having to support, that choice. For instance, because America allows white seperatists like the teens in another thread to exist, does this mean that we are somehow condoning and supporting their choice? I don't see it.
I think the whole 'support' statement turns the role of state and society around with regards to the individual and individual groups. Rather than certain freedoms being a default and people existing as equals, it makes the role of state and society into that of a parent who must give approval for things that people do before they can do them. For instance, if I disapprove of something you do, Kat, so what? Why should I get a say in whether or not you do it or not? Why, and when, should you get a say in whether or not two people civilly commit, or marry, or not? Saying, as another person did in another thread, that you legally can, seems to me to leave the question unanswered.
I recognize that my comments kind of mirror Karl's, but I hope they come at it from a slightly different angle sufficiently that they shed a little more light on the question.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Senoj, I do want to interject that I am glad you are here at Hatrack. I really appreciate your sincere and frank answers to my questions (and those of others) as well.
Thanks Karl. Are you still feeling bad about the smackdown you gave me on the library thread?
I really love the Hatrack community. I talk about it all the time, and my wife just rolls her eyes when I start a conversation with, "Today at Hatrack someone..."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Stormy-
Did you see my comment about anti-sodomy laws vs. SSM? I feel that by definition SSM is about marriage and marriage is about social acceptance. The rights issues (hospital visitation) I think can be reconciled through means external to marriage (edit for clarity). So pushing for marriage instead of these alternatives seems to me to be a push for acceptance.
kmboots-
I think sex is an essential part of marriage. I think when sex isn't part of a marriage, the marriage suffers incredible strains because of the centrality of sex to marriage. I am unwilling to divorce discussion of marriage from the question of sex. (I don't mean that to sound pushy; I just feel fairly strongly about this for personal reasons).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The rights issues (hospital visitation) I think can be reconciled through means external to marriage or CUs.
Would you also remove these means from existing marriage law? So that no sort of legal union exists at all? Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Or are you proposing that all people should have to have the foresight to make up visit lists and living wills prior to any potential need for them? Or is this only for gays?
That was exactly what I was proposing, for all couples. I think everyone should have a living will. It doesn't take a lot of foresight. Especially if it were established that a lack of one would result in a denial of visitation rights.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
If same-sex couples are just as likely to invite kids into their lives as male-female couples, and if all things being equal same-sex couples are as likely to raise well-adjusted kids as male-female couples, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry, since I think the main reason we give government benefits for marrying is so that kids will grow up in good homes. Even if same-sex couples turn out to be "worse," I wouldn't necessarily be against them marrying because there may be a number of male-female couples equally bad that we'd let marry.
I personally can't conceive of how same-sex couples could be "worse," but I know that the consequences could be very bad if they are "worse," so I go back and forth on legalizing same-sex marriage. And it seems likely to me that humans could have evolved to need both a man and a woman to grow up properly, though I have no explicit biological argument for it.
But if I end up favoring same-sex marriage, just to ensure that same-sex couples will always be doing some good, and for other reasons as well, I'd like to ban techniques such as artificial insemination that allow the creation of kids biologically related to only one parent. This way same-sex couples would always have to adopt and almost guarantee a kid a better life; and I've always felt that it's not stable if only one "parent" is biologically related to a kid. Why not just adopt and put both parents on an equal footing with the kid?
Edit: See my post below for clarification of this last paragraph.
[ October 25, 2005, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Omega M. ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Did you see my comment about anti-sodomy laws vs. SSM? I feel that by definition SSM is about marriage and marriage is about social acceptance. The rights issues (hospital visitation) I think can be reconciled through means external to marriage or CUs. So pushing for marriage instead of these alternatives seems to me to be a push for acceptance.
I still do not understand why *you* need to do anything about SSM. I don't see that your previous statement answers that.
Let's say DOMA type stuff is struck down, the American populace undergoes some kind of sea change in its mindset, and SSM starts happening all over the place. Why does this matter to you? How do you see this effecting you personally? We already have many religions in this country, and they all coexist peacefully with different views on what is good and bad, the role of women and men with regards to each other and society. How will SSM impact you sufficiently, over and above the existence of all these other groups who don't believe as you do, that you need to do anything?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I think everyone should have a living will. It doesn't take a lot of foresight.
It's worth noting that there are a number of legal presumptions about married couples -- from insurance to visitation rights to rights of attorney -- that would vanish under this system. Your approach would basically hand a lot of money to lawyers.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Storm-
My premise is that marriage is primarily about acceptance, not allowance. If there were laws prohibiting private institutions from holding "commitment ceremonies" I would likely oppose them. Because then it would be about the government allowing a free practice. But the SSM question is not about that; it's about civilly accepting the validity of a particular relationship. Do you disagree with my premise? Karl has, and I'm sure others do. I'm trying to explain why I oppose it, not why someone else should.
I keep thinking about "Man for all Seasons," one of my favorite movies (I bet it's even better than "Love in Chains", Karl ). Thomas Moore is being pressured to submit to an oath that he personally opposes. He says something to the effect of, "When a man takes an oath he holds his own soul in his hands. If he should open his fingers then, what is to become of his self?" I see SSM on similar lines; it would hurt my soul to say I approve of, or accept as valid, something that I don't.
BTW, (question open to all) I'm going on vacation at the end of the day. Is there Hatrack protocol when the author of a thread abandons it? Do I have any responsibility as initial poster to moderate the discussion?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
StormSaxon, thanks for your participation in this aspect of the discussion. I believe you have actually elucidated what I was only hinting at. (Mainly because my questions were more gut reaction than reasoned, so you've helped me clarify my own thoughts on this.)
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: But if I end up favoring same-sex marriage, just to ensure that same-sex couples will always be doing some good, and for other reasons as well, I'd like to ban techniques such as artificial insemination that allow the creation of kids biologically related to only one parent. This way same-sex couples would always have to adopt and almost guarantee a kid a better life; and I've always felt that it's not stable if only one "parent" is biologically related to a kid. Why not just adopt and put both parents on an equal footing with the kid?
Omega, I appreciated the first part of your post so much that it pains me to say this last part sorta turned my stomach. Why should gay couples, exactly, be restricted in any way biologically that straight couples aren't? (This is because presumably you wouldn't have a problem with a straight couple using such treatments if one of the parents were barren. Forgive me if this assumption isn't correct. It's unclear from your post.) If we're good enough to raise the orphans of the world, why aren't we good enough to raise our own? What about fertility treatments on the horizon what would allow two gay men to have a child biologically related to both of them?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Tom-
Maybe I can get Dag's support then
Not to be flippant. It's a valid concern, but I feel the alternatives are more offensive to my ideology than funneling money into lawyers' pockets, and so would support it, even so.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: kmboots-
I think sex is an essential part of marriage. I think when sex isn't part of a marriage, the marriage suffers incredible strains because of the centrality of sex to marriage. I am unwilling to divorce discussion of marriage from the question of sex. (I don't mean that to sound pushy; I just feel fairly strongly about this for personal reasons).
I completely agree with you. I'm just saying that romantic love/eros includes so much more than intercourse. A sexual relationship is not just about arousal and orgasm. It's about being sleeping in spoons and laughing at things that are only funny in bed, about slow dancing, about a quick hug and kiss on the way to work. I think we tend to forget those parts of a love relationship when we discuss same sex marriage.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Senoj, in what way would it hurt your soul that "accepting as valid" or "approving of" the existence of the KKK or NAMBLA does not. Or do you see that you somehow would be forced to accept or approve of SSM in a way different than you are forced to accept and approve of the latter two?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Arg - my post was eaten! Karl, I had answered every question. I may do so again, but I need to actually work.
To sum up quickly: I would vote no because my opinion is being asked. I do not have the opportunity at a normal day to change how things go for other parts of our society I disagree with, but this is an issue now. To not vote is to refuse to take a stand, and I personally think that's weenie.
If it already existed, I probably wouldn't do anything to fight it. But the decision time is now, and it has been forced upon me. To abstain or vote yes is to abdicate my responsibility for my part in society.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I guess what I'm hung up on is the assumption that it's your responsibility to prevent Karl from marrying his partner.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm responsible for the laws and mores of our society, in my own little way. Voting yes means supporting it, in my own little way. In my own little way, I'd vote no.
He can do whatever he wants. He doesn't get my support for it.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Okay, very sorry about that. I meant banning those techniques for all couples, same-sex or male-female, because I'm afraid that it would create instability if only one parent was biologically related to the child and the child had to grow up wondering who his "real" father or mother was.
For this reason, I would be okay with any method that allows two people of the same sex to reproduce. (Though you'd have to make sure that the kid wouldn't wind up YY, and two women would only be able to have girls?) I assume those techniques are far enough away that if we legalize same-sex marriage now we'd have a pretty good idea of its effects on kids by the time those techniques become available.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
See I would vote for SSM because I can't lend my approval to the idea that government should get to decide who can marry whom.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I would vote no precisely because it is my responsibility in that moment to decide, and I bear the same portion of responsibility for the consequences as well.
When we vote, we are the government.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And I don't think that we should be deciding whom other people are allowed to marry. I hold the ideal of individual rights very dear and believe it is my responsibility to try to protect it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I resent the implication that I don't. I hold many things dear, including my own right to support things I believe in.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think I implied that.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:I resent the implication that I don't. I hold many things dear, including my own right to support things I believe in.
Your right to support things you believe in is more important than the happiness you are denying?
Isn't altruism and self-sacrifice one of the greatest messages of christianity?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay. I misread it then. It looked you were saying you held an opinion different from mine because you hold individual rights dear, which seemed to imply that I help my opinion because I didn't.
quote:Isn't altruism and self-sacrifice one of the greatest messages of christianity?
Oh, please. To quote Sister Carlotta, ever notice how unbelievers always want other people to act like Christians? Kat's Rule of Life #13 allows me to ignore everyone who uses my own religion against me.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:However, legalizing SSM is asking me, for my part in society, to publicly approve and agree to support. You can do whatever you want, but you can't demand that I support you
Legalizing SSM, imo, is to ask you to grant people the right to choose for themselves. Whether you support the decision they make is another question altogether.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Oh, please. To quote Sister Carlotta, ever notice how unbelievers always want other people to act like Christians?
How silly of people to expect Christians to act like Christians.
Perhaps atheists should be acting like Christians?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Whether you support the decision they make is another question altogether.
Right - except that I am being asked to support it, because a vote has come up. To vote yes would be to support it. I don't support it. So I'm voting no.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is a difference between supporting someone's actions and supporting someone's right to those actions. Perhaps this is where we are stumbling. I absolutely do not support the KKK, for example, yet I do support their right to hold heinous opinions. I would vote against a law restricting those rights.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Perhaps atheists should be acting like Christians?
They'd be happier if they did Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I do not consider marriage a right.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is for some people.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then those people can vote yes.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
What do you mean, kmb?
If the government stopped recognizing my marriage for legal purposes I would not feel my rights had been violated.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:They'd be happier if they did
Perhaps in the long run, depending on what you believe. In the short term I rather doubt it.
quote:I do not consider marriage a right.
No? So you have no right to marriage and the government should feel free to deny you the ability to marry?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Yes, as kmbboots mentioned, granting such things like freedom of speech does not mean that you have to support what everyone eventually decides to say. I don't agree with everything the government decides to spend money on, but I still support the government by paying taxes. I don't think my friend Laura should be getting married to Aaron, but given the choice, I would not take away her right to decide who she marries. I don't support her decision, but I do firmly support her right to decide.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then you vote the way you feel is right. So will I.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Maybe I am using "rights" in a different way. How about this? If the government allows/endorses the privledge of marriage to some, it should do so for all - assuming competance.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: So you have no right to marriage and the government should feel free to deny you the ability to marry?
Yes. That is to say, the government should feel free to deny legal benefits currently recognized as marriage benefits. I have no inborn right to them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But we are allowing those legal benefits to some and not to others.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Perhaps atheists should be acting like Christians?
They'd be happier if they did
I'll keep my non-marital sex, thanks. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: That is to say, the government should feel free to deny legal benefits currently recognized as marriage benefits. I have no inborn right to them.
Let me just say that I find this a logically consistent opinion. However, I think it makes more sense to extend these benefits to everyone deserving than to withdraw them from all.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The thread has strayed somewhat from my initial thesis which is that marriage, by definition, is about signalling a community's approval of a relationship. Rather than freedom of speech, I would compare it to the NEA. When the government takes it upon itself to indicate its (and, by representation, my) approval of specific art, it becomes my civic responsibility to make my voice heard in making that definition. I feel similarly with regards to SSM.
And no one answered my question about responsibilities of thread ownership. When I'm gone on vacation (T-minus 1 hour) do I have a responsibility to monitor a thread I started? If so, is there some way to lock it (since I won't be able to monitor it)?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You don't have to monitor. It will probably disintegrate, like most of them do, but once the thread has begun, it has a life of its own.
I agree with your thesis, by the way. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think I tried to address your original comment here:
quote: Part of the difficulty is the difference between "community" and "country/government".
Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of distributing sacraments or giving symbolic approval of anyone's sexual relationship. Government can be in the business of validating contractual relationships. Since they do that for some people, they should do it for everyone.
Communities - churches, families, friends - can then bestow whatever sacramental or symbolic blessing they so choose.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Thanks for the answer kat.
Aloha, everybody. I'm going to Hawaii! Won't miss this MA weather at all.
And thanks for everyone's views. I really appreciate everyone's openness and politeness. I hope I didn't offend anyone. If so, it was unintential and if you point it out to me I will (likely) apologize.
Best, Peter
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: But the SSM question is not about that; it's about civilly accepting the validity of a particular relationship. Do you disagree with my premise? Karl has, and I'm sure others do. I'm trying to explain why I oppose it, not why someone else should.
I already made a post about why I thought the idea of 'freedom to' equates to 'support of' is false.
I agree with kmbboots. Like I need to ask tens of millions of people if I can get married before I do it? I know that perverts what you were trying to say a little, Senoj, but let me explore the logic of what you said.
It seems to me that what you are saying is that the general public is knowledgeable enough to say whether ssm is good or bad. Yet, I think this supposition is false. I challenge anyone here to predict accurately what the result would be if two men got married. I think most people casting their vote on ssm are voting in ignorance because ssm hasn't really existed, ever, so it is impossible to predict what will happen.
You might say, then, that we don't know whether any good will come from it, but this gets back to my point that the default position of a society should be that the individual should be free from state coercion unless there is some kind of necessity. I think that necessity should revolve around some kind of observable harm, in the absence of complaint from an individual, or redress to harm if an individual complains. That is, if people engaged in ssm complain to the state that it's harming them, the state can step in and help get them out of the situation, otherwise the state should do nothing unless pots and pans are being flung at heads.
Again, just because the state/public can doesn't mean that it should, or that there is evidence that it should.
Let me put it to you a different way. What evidence is there that the state's participation in marriage has had a positive effect on society? What need is there for it?
This gets back to kmbboots point regarding what we mean by community and state. When I say state, I mean the government. People in its employ.
When I say community, I mean a group of people who voluntarily stay together, or consider themselves a group, for some reason.
I submit that the benefits of marriage derive exclusively from the latter, and from the individuals involved. That the state's involvment in marriage has done, and will do, nothing to improve it, and can only make it worse because you are bringing in the opinions and wishes of people who don't know you, don't care for you, and don't, frankly, have any knowledge of the character of you or your significant other.
Do we want atheists determining what marriage means between Catholics or Mormons, or should those groups privately decide? I think those groups should privately decide because they know what is best for their community and their decisions don't directly harm themselves or other people. Though, King of Men might think otherwise.
You and others keep on restating your position that you believe that it is the state's function to aprove or disprove of marriage. Yet, I don't see that you've made a case that there is a need for it, or that it is a good idea.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not trying to convince you. I'm telling you why you have not convinced me.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:They'd be happier if they did
You have got to get out of this line of thinking.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Ok. Back to the 1st question. You do not support the rights for two people of the same sex to marry because you do not wish the community to support thier relationship.
So what do we do with the couple?
Do we force them to change? Its been tried, with prisons and mental hospitals and lynchings. It has not been able to force them to chang.
Do we ignore them? That is apparently the community status quo. We ignore them as much as they let us and we hope they go away.
They haven't.
The whole SSM movement has been a cultural shift attempting to bring gays and lesbians into the community. Disallowing it puts up a great big stop sign, it reads "You are welcome no further into our community. You are and will always be an outsider until the time you can no longer be what you are."
If you do not allow their love into the community, calling it wrong, then you do not allow them into the community.
Lets try a different tact.
Most religions agree that premarital sex is immoral, and should not be condoned.
Many religions believe that the only true marriage is one that is consecrated by God.
To them, people married at a civil ceremony are not truly married--they are living in sin. Yet there is no movement to get such couplings not called marriages. What is the difference between that and SSM.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Is this directed at me?
For the first, what to do: Why do anything with them? What people choose to do with their lives is up to them. Their lives are their own stewardship and their own business. How I handle my life and stewardship is mine.
For the second, that doesn't describe my viewpoint, so I have no way to answer it. You'll have to ask someone who doesn't believe that any civil ceremony is valid.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Lets try a different tact.
This is completely off-topic, but I just wanted to say that this is a pet peeve of mine. The actual saying is "let's try a different tack," as in "tacking a sail" -- which is what changes a sailboat's direction.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Many religions believe that the only true marriage is one that is consecrated by God.
To them, people married at a civil ceremony are not truly married--they are living in sin.
I don't know of "many" religions that believe this.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: What people choose to do with their lives is up to them. Their lives are their own stewardship and their own business. How I handle my life and stewardship is mine.
Why not allow homosexuals to have a civil ceremony that grants them the hospital visitation and other rights granted by the state to married couples then?
Same-sex marriages will not interfere in anybody's life, and by allowing homosexual people that opportuity you do nothing to validate their morals, other than agreeing that they should have the opportunity to be happy.
I don't even know if I want the state to recognize marriage at all, but if it does, it should allow anybody to marry anybody.
Research consistently shows that homosexuals do not choose to feel a same-sex attraction. I think that in light of this, there is any reason to deny them the chance to enter into a marriage contract with whomever they choose.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)