What is the most probable motivation for the states that reject gay marriage?

[ebaycj]

It was assumed to be between man and woman... it didn't get codified back then. Use to be marriage was between the same race with some exceptions. I'm all for limiting it to the same species... beyond that.. nah..

I'm with you.

I say we should even allow polygamy.

Bestiality marriages, I'd say no, because animals are not legal adults and cannot consent or legally enter into a contract. But, if people want to go around fucking their dogs / cats / horses / whatever, yes, that's nasty, but who am I to stop them?

I would also say that incest should be legal, as long as there is no offspring (inbreeding = genetic defects, ever see that x-files episode?).

Freedom, baby, Freedom.

 

[spittledip]

But dont you think the concept should be open to interpretation as we move forward in society with regards to equality with this issue. Thats whats happening now. over the "concept of marriage" The word concept can have many definitions also. Definitions of words do evolve over time. It could mean an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances. Or, familiarly, something conceived in the mind, as in a thought or notion, especially when it concerns generalization from particular instances. Maybe, a general notion around which ideas are developed.

I beleive the main reason many people are motivated to vote to retain the definition of marriage is the underlying idea that it represents a specific (normal) relationship. You could say thats a "nice" distinction. And I mean that in the original sense of the word nice illustrateing the problem of supposed fidelity to language.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nice

'nice' originally meant silly, or foolish. It derived from the lation nescius, ignorant. It took on the meaning of "timid," and evolved into fastidious, or fussy. From there, it came to mean precise, or careful. It ultimately ended up with its present definition of "thoughtful," or "agreeable."

Now, you may inveigh against the dilution of the meaning of 'nice,' and insist it return to its thirteenth century meaning. But in my view, you'd be foolish (nice, eh?) to do that, because the natural conclusion is that you want us to be speaking Old English.

The absurdity of that question highlights in sharp relief the inescapable fact that language evolves. It's a natural consequence of language.

On the other hand, we should correctly resist any language change that robs us of an ability to make a useful or material distinction.

So it seem to me that if we insist that "marriage" should be retained to identify a male-female pairng, we must identify why, specifically, this identification is of value to us.

The concept of what "marriage" is generally is the same throughout many different languages, where the actual word used for marriage is different. The concept of what "nice" is has always been how we define it now, but the word used to describe what "nice" is has changed, at least in some instances. The word may change in terms of how it is used or what it defines, but the thing a word describes does not change. Words merely refer to static things, they are not the things themselves. I agree with you that concepts can evolve, but if the concept changes radically enough, it really isn't the same concept anymore (obviously). If it is not the same concept fundamentally, we really should use a different word to describe it.

I understand that there are some historical examples of same-sex marriage. These of course have always been the exception, not the definition of the concept.

I think the real problem is that people do recognize anything sacred anymore. It seems that the country is split in revering the sacred and those who do not believe in the sacred or morality. Of course, many of those who believe in the sacred do not know why they believe in it, and it is merely tradition.

Tradition in a culture can be perceived as meaningless. It has an important role (creates solidarity, is a part of heritage which is important for identity, etc), but this does not mean it remains relevant when the pillars upon which it has been built no longer remain. In reference to marriage in AMerica, this is exactly what has happened. Our concept of marriage has come from Judeo-Christian principals (we are a western based society after all). As people have come to understand that the values seem to have no value if they do not believe in the foundation of the values, they have dropped the values one by one. The truth is, this is only logical. If you do not believe in the system from which the values came, why should you believe in the values themselves? So, holding the value b/c of tradition is really not very logical if that is your only reason to hold onto them. (of course, this does not make one a bigot, it just means they haven't come to own their own beliefs).

However, if one does have a sense of the sacred and morality due to a founding belief system, it is logical to hold onto the values. Of course, if there is no true basis for any set of values other than what an individual holds to be true, there are no true values anyway.

So, the way America is right now makes sense. We should be boiling over this issue b/c there is a set of people who do not hold to anything other than the physical world that they see and touch, and there is a set of people who have some belief in the spiritual but it is vague and foggy with no definition except for what they assign to it, and there is a set of people who hold onto tradition without thinking through what they actually believe, and there is a set of people who hold onto "religious-based" values due to their founding belief system.

Where does this leave us? No where really. If we don't agree on the foundations of life, then logically we will generally not agree on many other issues that are resultant of our core beliefs. If I say that God has called marriage sacred, that means nothing to those who do not believe in God. Nothing can be sacred or moral, logically, to those who do not believe in God or do not believe in something other than the physical world b/c there are no foundations and values can be shifted on a whim at the individual level and the societal level. This does not mean that I won't try to defend the sacred, even though it falls on deaf ears.

 

[Red Dawn]

People who are against interracial marriage are not necessarily bigots either.

Yeas they are.

 

[spittledip]

Yeas they are.

Really? So all people who do not believe in mixed marriages hold some sort of animosity? How do you know that?

 

[Red Dawn]

Really? So all people who do not believe in mixed marriages hold some sort of animosity? How do you know that?

They are intolerent towards those who wish to marry outside of their race, that's a definition of bigotry. They might not know any better but that doesn't really excuse them.

 

[Craig234]

Really? So all people who do not believe in mixed marriages hold some sort of animosity? How do you know that?

By looking carefully at the issue for any other reasons, by talking to them, by listening to their movement's statements. He didn't say animosity - it's bigotry. Not the same.

The absence of any other motive in your own post is just further evidence.

If someone said 'everyone who supported Obama did so because of his race', I wouldn't just say 'oh really?' like you did. I'd lay out the other reasons.

But you dind't do that, did you? If there are other reasons, let's hear them.

The so-called 'conservative' arguments presented earlier are pathetic, and based in bigotry as well.

Conservatives are hard-wired to 'oppose radical recklss change', and so they try to turn every round peg into a square one to make it fit that description.

But it's just cover - an argument created to serve the needs of bigotry without admitting what it is, just as every bigot became a constitutional scholar when "states' rights" was used for cover for opposing the federal government's outlawing of segregation in the South decades ago.

They put in the boilerplate 'conservative' words. Notice how frequently they use the phrase "mess with" marriage? Because conservatives don't like to "mess with" things.

So they throw out all the real issues about the rights of gays, and replace them with the phrase "mess with" marriage, to get them shaking their heads, oh no don't do that.

Where do they question their right to perpetuate unjust diiscrimination one more day? You don't see that.

Are these weak conservatives simply unable to understand issues of justice? Their arguments could be applied to any issue of injustice that comes up, letting them argue for delay and not for correction. Womens' right to vote? Oh, that's only been men for a long time, we don't want to 'mess with' such a fundamental part of our democracy. End slavery? Oh, that's a long standing system for thousands of years and our economy greatly relied on it, don't 'mess with' such an important institutions.

No, they just oppose the justice on the issue - and then when they lose, they switch their position, forget to thank the liberals, and make up excuses why that issue is different.

So now conservatives can explain all day why slavery is wrong, why women deserve the right to vote, and pesumably after gay discrimination is ended, they'll be able to explain why that's right too, and different from whatever justice they're opposing at the time, just as they now largely accept not imprisoniing gays for gay sex - something widely defended not very long ago.

 

[spittledip]

By looking carefully at the issue for any other reasons, by talking to them, by listening to their movement's statements. He didn't say animosity - it's bigotry. Not the same.

The absence of any other motive in your own post is just further evidence.

If someone said 'everyone who supported Obama did so because of his race', I wouldn't just say 'oh really?' like you did. I'd lay out the other reasons.

But you dind't do that, did you? If there are other reasons, let's hear them.

The so-called 'conservative' arguments presented earlier are pathetic, and based in bigotry as well.

Conservatives are hard-wired to 'oppose radical recklss change', and so they try to turn every round peg into a square one to make it fit that description.

But it's just cover - an argument created to serve the needs of bigotry without admitting what it is, just as every bigot became a constitutional scholar when "states' rights" was used for cover for opposing the federal government's outlawing of segregation in the South decades ago.

They put in the boilerplate 'conservative' words. Notice how frequently they use the phrase "mess with" marriage? Because conservatives don't like to "mess with" things.

So they throw out all the real issues about the rights of gays, and replace them with the phrase "mess with" marriage, to get them shaking their heads, oh no don't do that.

Where do they question their right to perpetuate unjust diiscrimination one more day? You don't see that.

Are these weak conservatives simply unable to understand issues of justice? Their arguments could be applied to any issue of injustice that comes up, letting them argue for delay and not for correction. Womens' right to vote? Oh, that's only been men for a long time, we don't want to 'mess with' such a fundamental part of our democracy. End slavery? Oh, that's a long standing system for thousands of years and our economy greatly relied on it, don't 'mess with' such an important institutions.

No, they just oppose the justice on the issue - and then when they lose, they switch their position, forget to thank the liberals, and make up excuses why that issue is different.

So now conservatives can explain all day why slavery is wrong, why women deserve the right to vote, and pesumably after gay discrimination is ended, they'll be able to explain why that's right too, and different from whatever justice they're opposing at the time, just as they now largely accept not imprisoniing gays for gay sex - something widely defended not very long ago.

You seem to think that everyone thinks about what they believe and that no one has unquestioned beliefs. I think that most people have unquestioned beliefs as most people are generally not very self-aware. So it is very possible that alot of people hold onto beliefs that they don't even consider when they come up, unless they are forced to. This is not a smart way to live, but in our world of instant entertainment and constant distraction, it is probably much more common today than it ever was.

Bigotry is not the same as animosity, but it always is flavored with malice. If there is no malice, the best you can claim is that someone is ignorant... however you can only claim that if you are actually the one who is in the right.

 

[actuarial]

The "proper" segment was only an example of how someone may hold a belief that may be considered discriminatory without being a bigot.

So as long as I just simply think that a certain race doesn't deserve to live because I was taught it and think it's not proper to be that race, I'm not a bigot?

I require some deep self reflection to be a bigot?

Making an active choice to vote against something should be enough to prove bigotry (the basis of this thread is no states reflecting gay marriage through a vote).

 

[actuarial]

Also, you can't really compare interracial marriage with same-sex marriage as one stays within the definition of marriage and the other does not. People were not opposed to interracial marriage b/c it was going against what marriage was, they were against it b/c they did not like the idea of one of their own being married to a race they did not like. Completely different concept. In order to make the comparison work, you would first have to redefine marriage, and then make the comparison. However, had marriage already been redefined, this would not be an issue. In the end it is circular.

1) I don't think it's different at all. Either way we're talking about people wanting to legislate against a marriage they believe is immoral. BOTH situations were rooted in morality. I don't care if you want to think something is immoral, but unless it's affecting you, stay out of other people's lives.

2) Interracial marriage stays within YOUR definition of marriage. To the racist an interracial marriage does not. Marriages by their traditional definition are religious. Should we ban all secular marriages and inter-religious marriages because they don't fit the definition?

 

[BMW540I6speed]

@ Spittledip

It sounds like you are still hung up on a word attached to a concept. If I am reading your reply correctly you dont want the word marriage attached the concept of MM or FF union which would be entitled to the same rights by law if passed. Because in reality, SS marriage IS a different concept. If passed by legislatures would be goverened by its own strict case law. Its a seperate concept you have trouble rapping the word marriage around for what is sounds like, religious, traditional reasons, the status quo. If you do support SS marriage under a different word or concept I don't find your views "bigoted" in a sense. I would use the words "old fashioned" or "backward". Just as I illustrated how a words meaning can change over time and a concept can evolve over time. I agree that people have to be convinced that the change is good. Sadly, that just takes time. If you support asserting no inalienable rights to gays, then i might view your views as "bigoted". While "inalienable rights" is generally classed as a Deist belief that has percolated into an American value under our secular system. It's not strictly religious but philosophical, metaphysical. Whether or not they are "endowed by their Creator" (Christian God or otherwise) with them, the conception is that rights inhere in the individual, and the role of governments is not to deny or disparage them, but guarantee and protect them. In other words, the belief in pre-existent abstract "natural rights" is not inimical to a religious belief, but it is not dependent on it.

I do find your contention that nobody holds values sacred any more ridiculous. My wife and I do not adhere to any one diety of any of the organized religions. But we do have values we hold sacred. And our children, now entering adulthood, hold ingrained morality into which values they hold dear.There is the legal aspects to marriage and all that entails and there is the religious aspect. A church (or whatever) is not obligated to marry anyone. They can pick and choose as they like. The State however should recognize equal rights for all consenting adults who wish to hitch their wagons together regardless of sex or religion or color or anything else, with strict laws governing any new concept. I don't believe that the "one man and one woman" definition is enshrined in some unchangeable metaphysical construct. But there is a drive towards wanting to share one's life with another for whom one feels not merely lust but ongoing love, to participate in the ongoing care and upbringing of one's progeny, or of young persons one has bonded to in lieu of biological progeny. So 'marriage' is a sort of biological or social imperative. Not exclusive heterosexual monogamy as an exclusive definition of marriage, but 'marrige' in the broad sense. It, not just ease of access to a sex partner, is why couples live together, with or without marital vows; it is why adoptions and foster parent programs succeed. It is a real construct.

And how is it that "what is natural" is such a holy grail? Polio is natural. Influenza is natural. In fact, feet are natural; shoes and automobiles are not. Yet I suspect that those glorifying the natural are not (with perhaps a few exceptions) limping from place to place, barefoot and coughing. What, specifically, were left hands "designed" for? Is it a natural act for a left hand to grasp and control a helicopter collective? Was it designed to do that? Was it designed to rest its fingers on the letters ASDF of a keyboard? How did this design process work, exactly, and how can we determine what other acts may be unnatural for left hands to accomplish? Are there any?

It does kind of astonish me how all those non-Judeo-Christians through history managed to keep their civilizations going without the sacred institution of marriage that the Christians invented. All those poor pre-Christian pagans and unenlightened heathens around the world (before the missionaries got there), never knowing the sacred and exclusive institution of marriage The men and women of Babylon and Egypt, the ancient Greeks, Imperial Rome, the mighty civilizations of the East - I guess none of them could invent anything as lofty and sublime as "marriage", seeing as how none of them was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I have freinds and relatives that have similar views as yours. They have a problem with on the grounds of tradition and fear. They are confused. I dont find them to be bigots. Because the right to marry a person is a concept "deeply rooted in our nation's history." And the right to marry a person of the same sex is not. I'm a proponent of legal same-sex marriage, but I agree that you cannot make this argument unchallenged and it must be enshrined under strict law . I support SSM, but acknowledge it as a change from the status quo. But one of the tests for due process protection is that a particular practice is deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the nation. For example, forbidding marriage based on political affiliation has no basis at all in our history. Forbidding marriage to a partner of the same sex does. And that test is one that's enshrined in law. A right is that for which denial of it has a legal remedy. One of the reasons I am for SS marriage is they do not have the right to marry the person of their choice - they are obliged, if they do choose to marry, they would have to select from a pool of people they would not choose. Because gay people, as opposed to heterosexual people, are distinguished by the fact that they are drawn romantically and sexually to persons of their own sex.

Several state courts have found such a right grounded in their state constitutions. In some of them, the electorate has subsequently approved an amendment advising the courts that their interpretation was mistaken. In three, the ruling has survived: Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa. Two other states have SSM by legislative action as opposed to court ruling. when SSM comes about by judicial rule, it's acceptance is tenuous and may well be voted down by the electorate. Indeed, to date the electorate has never accepted an SSM bill.

I have been thrilled to see New Hampshire and Vermont take action by their legislatures, which are (or supposed to be) the voice of the people. This is the way change should come, for practical and ideological reasons. And will avoid the religious right running around screaming, "activist judges"!.

I feel that the proper mode of instituting SSM is through the legislature, not the courts. And I favor SSM provided that the legislature (or presumably a referendum where legal) enacts it. While there is a fundamental right to marry, it is not without limitation. We may not marry father to daughters, or sons to mothers, or brothers to sisters. It's not an absolute right. It's a right that society constrains.

I support SSM with the distinction that it's not an unlimited right. I cannot marry a person already married. I can't marry a close relative. It's a right that's defined and constrained by law. If you do consider marriage a right, there needs to be a remedy available for being denied that right. If the marriage you seek is authorized by law, since the right flows form that law. There is no legal remedy if I wish to marry a person already married, or if I wish to marry my niece. If the marriage I seek is not authorized by law, then there is no right to that marriage, and no remedy for denial of it. This can be done. But it cant be shoved down peoples throats. There can be a seperate concept inshrined in strict case law, which intern can aleviate many fears held by opponents. This WILL happen eventually.

I do feel for SS couples that have been together their whole life and are close to death with no legal remedys. So, I do see their taking it to the courts as justifiable in a sense. And I do agree that "civil unions" may be the starting point. The Netherlands enacted civil unions in 1992 and five years later, SS marriage. But I still believe the court should not make policy. When new gorund must be broken if our notion of self-governance is to mean anything, it must come from the legislature.

THAT is what I believe.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

The authoritarian desire to restrict the relationships and associations of other people. That is the motivation. The desire to control people and force them to be like you.

edit: to clarify, we're not allowing gay marriage. That's a misnomer. This isn't about granting unnatural freedoms or changing a natural state, because the natural state is that people don't have to ask for govt's permission in order to have sex. And just because the laws against fornication and sodomy are no longer enforced doesn't mean that that's not what we're really talking about, because it is.

I do think most of the opposition to SSM is the sex. How do you counter fraudulent claims ("If gays have the right to marry, they'll be teaching homosexuality is OK to first graders") raised by less-than-honest SSM opponents, which have been the bane of several recent campaigns, like the Proposition 8 one?. I think the best counter to this kind of hateful nonsense is to show loving couples, with kids. Seriously: not Hollywood-casted sex-appeal people, but ordinary, lumpy, dumpy normal-looking couples, with their kids, people who are willing to say: This is our family. Karen brought this drawing home from school yesterday. Emma was going to pick her up, but had to stop and get the car inspected, so I was the one to get her today. And Joey just lost his first baby tooth. This is our family. It's just like yours. Let us be married. Show familys that have adjusted well to one of their children who happens to be gay.

And older couples that have been together forever. The important thing is to emphasize the normality and shy away from sex. Show love and caring, not lasciviousness. I am convinced that, at the heart of it, the objection to gay marriage is really the objection to gay sex. Effective ads would, in my view, emphasize the normal and loving couples aspect of the issue.

 

[Atreus21]

Yay, let's play the slippery slope game instead of addressing the issue before us.

Same arguments made when interracial marriage was the topic of the day. "Race mixing is for mongrels like dogs! We aint no mutts!"

What you call a slippery slope, I call a premise leading to a conclusion. What else can be justified using the "what harm can it cause" argument? It's a horrible starting point to justify an action.

But to address your "argument", adult consensual polygamy won't cause any real harm, it's the abuses associated with the practice from the groups which engage in it (i.e. forced marriage, rape, incest) that leads to harm. Frankly if 3 consenting adults wish to get married, the arguments against it will be merely practical, i.e. property dissolution, inheritance, divorce allocation of assets, custody, powers of attorney and next of kin (what if you have 2 wives who disagree whether your plug should be pulled?)
So, again, where's your "practical" arguments against same sex marriage?

I don't have any practical arguments against it. Practical arguments are useless if something is right or wrong in theory. I don't care about practical reasons in favor of abortion. I want theoretical reasons, such as it's wrong to prohibit something because prohibiting it is wrong, not inconvenient.

Incest is banned because inbreeding leads to genetic abnormalities. Your bestiality argument is simply insulting and has no relevance as an argument against gay marriage, as same sex marriage proponents aren't relying on the "what harm can it cause" position as a legal argument.

Genetic abnormalities or not, what right have we to deny consenting adults the right to marry? Just because incest exacerbates genetic abnormalities doesn't mean we can hold family members to a statistical stereotype.

The bestiality argument may be insulting, but on what basis would you oppose it if it were in the shoes of the SSM movement currently?

There are zero, zip, zilch, nada valid practical or legal argument's against same sex marriage. Tradition, religion, culture, fail, fail, fail.

And once again, yes there are. You simply disagree with them. An argument need not be agreeable to you to be an argument.

 

[K1052]

And once again, yes there are. You simply disagree with them. An argument need not be agreeable to you to be an argument.

When an argument fails every test put to it and cannot stand on it's own it has no merit. Your sole recourse is to fall back on multiple fallacies so the weakness of the argument is quite clear.

You can't hold a position with no facts to back it up unless you're going to play the faith card.

 

[LunarRay]

"... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ..."

In the minds of the founders some 12 years prior to developing the laws of the land was this notion... It was their expectation to derive a common document among what was then pretty independent States.
Notice 'Their Creator'... not 'The Creator'. They accepted differences of belief! They used the very broad term "pursuit of happiness". That term indicates from their writings that they did not seek to confine what would be the allowed happiness or the common happiness but, rather, they knew happiness is in the mind of the beholder.
Hamilton was thought to be gay or at the very least to be an homo-social individual and he also had little regard for his marriage or that of others... While most viewed bedding slaves as being normal engaging in marriage with one was, as in Jefferson's case, not the thing to do... These founders of ours were not about to create a document that outlawed their very own belief system, and they didn't. It was their intention to let the various States control their own life style but with the provision (in Article 4, Section 1) that notwithstanding each State's laws every other State must respect them.
This is by rights a State issue and by extension the Federal Government must accept the State law that it does not seek to over rule not by law but by SCOTUS opinion.
I have to give the States the option, therefore, to determine what Marriage is even if that is violative of equal protection or equal rights... I say this cuz SCOTUS has determined it to not be a Federal issue... BUT, to those States that permit Gay Marriage all States and the Feds must recognize it...

 

[IGBT]

I think the lawyers would love it. just think of the domestic violence beefs. two guys beating the crap out of each other over gawd knows what.

 

[fskimospy]

What you call a slippery slope, I call a premise leading to a conclusion. What else can be justified using the "what harm can it cause" argument? It's a horrible starting point to justify an action.

No it isn't. In fact it's the exact meathod we use to justify all actions related to fundamental rights (such as marriage) under the US Constitution. If you can't prove harm, then you can't prohibit the protected action.

Genetic abnormalities or not, what right have we to deny consenting adults the right to marry? Just because incest exacerbates genetic abnormalities doesn't mean we can hold family members to a statistical stereotype.

Yes we can, it causes harm. See point #1.

The bestiality argument may be insulting, but on what basis would you oppose it if it were in the shoes of the SSM movement currently?

I cannot believe the beastiality argument still exists. An animal is not a consenting partner in a legal marriage contract, nor is it able to provide consent for sexual intercourse. The reason why beastiality isn't the same as gay marriage is the same reason why you can't enter into a mortgage with your cat. Can we put this to bed already? (har)

 

[syrillus]

And who says that they are not? Everyone is allowed to marry a parter of choice, provided they abide by a bunch of restrictions: no siblings, no parents/children, must be adults, must be consenting, must have a license, must not already be married etc and must be of opposite gender. There are many restrictions, and you want to remove one of the restrictions. One can certainly make many good arguments for that, but it's certainly NOT the only logical position.

I'm sorry, did you just compare homosexuality with incest, pedophilia, and rape? Yeah, clearly our logic is flawed.

 

[jonks]

Marriage is THE most basic foundation of human society and if we as human is smart, we wouldn't mess with it.

Marriage used to be entirely about lineage rights and property bequests; uniting two families in a fiefdom to secure their loyalty or end disputes; rewarding loyal subjects with a wife from a good family to essentially be the husbands property; selling daughters into marriage to appease debt or simply for acquisition of wealth; not to mention the hundreds of wives men had in the bible and other religious texts; love, not a big part of the institution. And of course the relatively recent historical ban on outlawing interracial marriages.

Really glad we didn't 'mess with it'.

Even if 'we as human is smart'.

 

[spittledip]

@ Spittledip

It sounds like you are still hung up on a word attached to a concept. If I am reading your reply correctly you dont want the word marriage attached the concept of MM or FF union which would be entitled to the same rights by law if passed. Because in reality, SS marriage IS a different concept. If passed by legislatures would be goverened by its own strict case law. Its a seperate concept you have trouble rapping the word marriage around for what is sounds like, religious, traditional reasons, the status quo. If you do support SS marriage under a different word or concept I don't find your views "bigoted" in a sense. I would use the words "old fashioned" or "backward". Just as I illustrated how a words meaning can change over time and a concept can evolve over time. I agree that people have to be convinced that the change is good. Sadly, that just takes time. If you support asserting no inalienable rights to gays, then i might view your views as "bigoted". While "inalienable rights" is generally classed as a Deist belief that has percolated into an American value under our secular system. It's not strictly religious but philosophical, metaphysical. Whether or not they are "endowed by their Creator" (Christian God or otherwise) with them, the conception is that rights inhere in the individual, and the role of governments is not to deny or disparage them, but guarantee and protect them. In other words, the belief in pre-existent abstract "natural rights" is not inimical to a religious belief, but it is not dependent on it.

I do find your contention that nobody holds values sacred any more ridiculous. My wife and I do not adhere to any one diety of any of the organized religions. But we do have values we hold sacred. And our children, now entering adulthood, hold ingrained morality into which values they hold dear.There is the legal aspects to marriage and all that entails and there is the religious aspect. A church (or whatever) is not obligated to marry anyone. They can pick and choose as they like. The State however should recognize equal rights for all consenting adults who wish to hitch their wagons together regardless of sex or religion or color or anything else, with strict laws governing any new concept. I don't believe that the "one man and one woman" definition is enshrined in some unchangeable metaphysical construct. But there is a drive towards wanting to share one's life with another for whom one feels not merely lust but ongoing love, to participate in the ongoing care and upbringing of one's progeny, or of young persons one has bonded to in lieu of biological progeny. So 'marriage' is a sort of biological or social imperative. Not exclusive heterosexual monogamy as an exclusive definition of marriage, but 'marrige' in the broad sense. It, not just ease of access to a sex partner, is why couples live together, with or without marital vows; it is why adoptions and foster parent programs succeed. It is a real construct.

And how is it that "what is natural" is such a holy grail? Polio is natural. Influenza is natural. In fact, feet are natural; shoes and automobiles are not. Yet I suspect that those glorifying the natural are not (with perhaps a few exceptions) limping from place to place, barefoot and coughing. What, specifically, were left hands "designed" for? Is it a natural act for a left hand to grasp and control a helicopter collective? Was it designed to do that? Was it designed to rest its fingers on the letters ASDF of a keyboard? How did this design process work, exactly, and how can we determine what other acts may be unnatural for left hands to accomplish? Are there any?

It does kind of astonish me how all those non-Judeo-Christians through history managed to keep their civilizations going without the sacred institution of marriage that the Christians invented. All those poor pre-Christian pagans and unenlightened heathens around the world (before the missionaries got there), never knowing the sacred and exclusive institution of marriage The men and women of Babylon and Egypt, the ancient Greeks, Imperial Rome, the mighty civilizations of the East - I guess none of them could invent anything as lofty and sublime as "marriage", seeing as how none of them was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I have freinds and relatives that have similar views as yours. They have a problem with on the grounds of tradition and fear. They are confused. I dont find them to be bigots. Because the right to marry a person is a concept "deeply rooted in our nation's history." And the right to marry a person of the same sex is not. I'm a proponent of legal same-sex marriage, but I agree that you cannot make this argument unchallenged and it must be enshrined under strict law . I support SSM, but acknowledge it as a change from the status quo. But one of the tests for due process protection is that a particular practice is deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the nation. For example, forbidding marriage based on political affiliation has no basis at all in our history. Forbidding marriage to a partner of the same sex does. And that test is one that's enshrined in law. A right is that for which denial of it has a legal remedy. One of the reasons I am for SS marriage is they do not have the right to marry the person of their choice - they are obliged, if they do choose to marry, they would have to select from a pool of people they would not choose. Because gay people, as opposed to heterosexual people, are distinguished by the fact that they are drawn romantically and sexually to persons of their own sex.

Several state courts have found such a right grounded in their state constitutions. In some of them, the electorate has subsequently approved an amendment advising the courts that their interpretation was mistaken. In three, the ruling has survived: Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa. Two other states have SSM by legislative action as opposed to court ruling. when SSM comes about by judicial rule, it's acceptance is tenuous and may well be voted down by the electorate. Indeed, to date the electorate has never accepted an SSM bill.

I have been thrilled to see New Hampshire and Vermont take action by their legislatures, which are (or supposed to be) the voice of the people. This is the way change should come, for practical and ideological reasons. And will avoid the religious right running around screaming, "activist judges"!.

I feel that the proper mode of instituting SSM is through the legislature, not the courts. And I favor SSM provided that the legislature (or presumably a referendum where legal) enacts it. While there is a fundamental right to marry, it is not without limitation. We may not marry father to daughters, or sons to mothers, or brothers to sisters. It's not an absolute right. It's a right that society constrains.

I support SSM with the distinction that it's not an unlimited right. I cannot marry a person already married. I can't marry a close relative. It's a right that's defined and constrained by law. If you do consider marriage a right, there needs to be a remedy available for being denied that right. If the marriage you seek is authorized by law, since the right flows form that law. There is no legal remedy if I wish to marry a person already married, or if I wish to marry my niece. If the marriage I seek is not authorized by law, then there is no right to that marriage, and no remedy for denial of it. This can be done. But it cant be shoved down peoples throats. There can be a seperate concept inshrined in strict case law, which intern can aleviate many fears held by opponents. This WILL happen eventually.

I do feel for SS couples that have been together their whole life and are close to death with no legal remedys. So, I do see their taking it to the courts as justifiable in a sense. And I do agree that "civil unions" may be the starting point. The Netherlands enacted civil unions in 1992 and five years later, SS marriage. But I still believe the court should not make policy. When new gorund must be broken if our notion of self-governance is to mean anything, it must come from the legislature.

THAT is what I believe.

Like posted earlier, b/c we come from such diametrically opposed foundational points, there is no way our views can agree in the end. Just a couple of things though.

-Christians didn't invent marriage.

-I don't find that which is natural to be a holy grail b/c some things you see in nature are very disgusting and far from "holy."

-The superficiality of values being held by a naturalist is subject for an entire new thread, and I won't be the one to start it

-I agree that same sex partners should be given the same rights as married people.

 

[spittledip]

So as long as I just simply think that a certain race doesn't deserve to live because I was taught it and think it's not proper to be that race, I'm not a bigot?

No, I wouldn't take it that far. To think that some race shouldn't exist is a pretty extreme example, and one that could not be held without malice.

I require some deep self reflection to be a bigot?

Um, not really what I said. You don't need to own your beliefs to be bigoted, b/c they can still wish harm on others despite not owning their beliefs. This is not uncommon- alot of people feel strongly about their beliefs but don't really know what exactly they believe.

Making an active choice to vote against something should be enough to prove bigotry (the basis of this thread is no states reflecting gay marriage through a vote).

No, not really. if there is no malice, there is no bigotry. Also, as another example, some people just vote along party lines. Also, if someone believes it is what is best for the nation and for the individuals it concerns, or other similar things, and not out of a desire to "defraud" people of their "rights," it would not be bigotry. Of course, the whole problem with this entire thread is that people want to judge others' motivations right from the start. Even if people say they have good motivations, it doesn't matter b/c others have already decided that there can be no good motivations for going against gay marriage.

 

[spittledip]

1) I don't think it's different at all. Either way we're talking about people wanting to legislate against a marriage they believe is immoral. BOTH situations were rooted in morality. I don't care if you want to think something is immoral, but unless it's affecting you, stay out of other people's lives.

2) Interracial marriage stays within YOUR definition of marriage. To the racist an interracial marriage does not. Marriages by their traditional definition are religious. Should we ban all secular marriages and inter-religious marriages because they don't fit the definition?

You may not think it is different, but that is not reality. The original concept of marriage and even our cultural concept of marriage (until the near future) is between a man and a woman. Race is not a part of the definition of marriage, gender is.

I do believe that if wrong things are allowed in society it does affect the nation as a whole. But like I already posted, we cannot agree b/c the foundations of our beliefs are very very different.

Marriage is a religious concept, but one does not have to hold to religious beliefs to conform to the original idea of marriage. Just like christening is devoid of any religious participation by the baby.

 

[Ackmed]

Um, because its wrong. So simple.

 

[blackangst1]

nvm I cant quote to work correctly

 

[redgtxdi]

Um, because its wrong. So simple.

Amen!

And Semper Fi!

 

[Bitek]

Has any anti-gay (marriage) advocate made ever made a compelling and logical arguement for their position, ever? For fucks sake, this has been a top issue for 5 yrs and I have yet to see one that doesn't resort to:
A) equivocation to bestiality/incest/rape/molestation
B) blanket excuses of nebulous (and inconsistent) claims of "tradition" which cannot change ever
C) Outright bigotry

So that really leaves the real reasons as childishness, cruelty and/or closet homosexuality.


Since the homophobes can't come up w/ any rational excuse to build on, their movement is intellectually and morally hollow, and they will eventually lose. The SSM movement just has to wait them out, worst case scenario.