Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Gay Couple Elope to Canada

LGBT Canada same-sex marriage eloped

  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#21 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,611 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 05:28 PM

The US judicial system has a long tradition of considering minor children as incapable of entering into binding contracts. So I can't see making legal marriage (or domestic partnership or civil union) open to same-sex couples as a first step to making pedophilia legal or OKing the marriage of eight-year-olds to adults. Also, using NAMBLA as the group that represents everyone who advocates for gay marriage is like using PETA to represent everyone who is a vegetarian or Al-Qaeda to represent everyone who is a Muslim.

As for studies showing the benefits of marriage--since only heterosexuals have been allowed to marry until very recently, I'd want to wait until comparative studies tracing gay married couples could be done. It may be that the benefits spring from marriage as a practice rather than from the one man/one woman concept.

Cardie

Straight, liberal and Jewish  ;)
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#22 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 05:39 PM

Cardie, on Dec 18 2003, 10:28 PM, said:

The US judicial system has a long tradition of considering minor children as incapable of entering into binding contracts. So I can't see making legal marriage (or domestic partnership or civil union) open to same-sex couples as a first step to making pedophilia legal or OKing the marriage of eight-year-olds to adults. Also, using NAMBLA as the group that represents everyone who advocates for gay marriage is like using PETA to represent everyone who is a vegetarian or Al-Qaeda to represent everyone who is a Muslim.

As for studies showing the benefits of marriage--since only heterosexuals have been allowed to marry until very recently, I'd want to wait until comparative studies tracing gay married couples could be done. It may be that the benefits spring from marriage as a practice rather than from the one man/one woman concept.

Cardie

Straight, liberal and Jewish  ;)
For the record, I do not think NAMBLA represents all (or most or even many) homosexuals.

However, I do think many pro-gay rights supporters use the exact same logic as NAMBLA and are afraid to face that fact.  Indeed, Cardie, even you avoid addressing the issue.

Until recently, the U.S. judicial system had a long history of not supporting or condoning homosexual relationships.  So are you saying that if the courts start supporting child/adult relationships, such relationships would become as morally sancrosanct as adult homosexual ones now?
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#23 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,021 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 05:59 PM

I don't know about those studies but studies I saw don't exactly show what you claim. They showed that men are healthier, happier and live longer when married. They also showed that women, when asked if they're happy, were more likely to answer positively when married than when single. But unlike the men, when they were tested to depression and stress symptoms, turned out to be in significantly worse condition than unmarried women. So marriage is only good for men ( I could argue that this is because women take care of things for them, they have less stress than before marriage, women have more. It makes sense, but it's not really proven)
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#24 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 06:00 PM

Quote

The canard that two adults have a "right" to do whatever they want to do as long as it does not harm another person -- while it does sound very good -- is just plain silly.

To use a non-sexual example, if two adults -- of legal age, obviously -- enjoy taking baseball bats and crushing the skulls of puppies, they should be allowed to do so with impunity?


Yama, sorry that was not what was said...and cruelity to animals is against the law in the US and in many other countries.

So that example does not hold water.


Atavus said:

Quote

but two people of legal age should be allowed to say I do, wherever, whenever to whomever.

"God said so" is not an adequate standard Yama...I happen to be Wiccan, and if you are refering to the judaeo-christian god- for me he doesn't count as he doesn't exist.

Poly, Conservative and Wiccan

Edited by Shalamar, 18 December 2003 - 06:02 PM.

The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#25 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 06:07 PM

Well at the risk of stirring the pot, my view is that the reason people who oppose gay marriage on the grounds that "the Bigle said so" need to rely on the Bible to support their argument (despite the fact that the Bible is full of a lot of nonsense about bull burning, slavery and shellfish that most people consider nonsense) is that if they *can't* rely on that then maybe they have to look at what is really motivating their feelings, which is uncomfortable.  I think the problem is compounded by the casual use (and yes I'm guilty of it) of words like "homophobe" and "bigot".  Maybe if people could be made to feel a little more comfortable about examining and perhaps even addressing their biases (and we all have biases, sheesh) without the use of such ugly words, a little progress could be made.

My two dinars of course.  ;)

Lil
Posted Image

#26 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 07:14 PM

Drew, on Dec 18 2003, 09:45 PM, said:

But, for example, if you live in an apartment building and you hear your downstairs neighbor beating his wife, it is your responsibility to intervene as much as possible (whether that means calling the police or breaking in and punching the bastard's lights out). We are our brothers' and sisters' keepers.
And Drew when she does not collaborate the story becasue "her man is going to jail" next thing I know I am paying a fine for assualt and maybe jail time. Now calling the police yes  that prudent and the best thing to do. If the wife is in my apartment yes I can defend her up to the use of lethal force. That is why there is a shotgun in my home load and ready to go.

But if my neighbor and his wife if they use bondage gear and beat on one another. Then what right do I have to bust into thier place? They are both consenting adults.  
If they are gay and are somewhat loud about thier passion(within reason) again is it my business? Or just loud during sex again sort of the distrubance to to me what business is it?

Otherwise give everyone the vouyercam and lets start making sure no one hurts one another.  I mean privacy for everyone or no one. Personally I'll take the privacy with the extra protection please.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#27 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 07:41 PM

Shalamar, on Dec 18 2003, 11:00 PM, said:

Quote

The canard that two adults have a "right" to do whatever they want to do as long as it does not harm another person -- while it does sound very good -- is just plain silly.

To use a non-sexual example, if two adults -- of legal age, obviously -- enjoy taking baseball bats and crushing the skulls of puppies, they should be allowed to do so with impunity?


Yama, sorry that was not what was said...and cruelity to animals is against the law in the US and in many other countries.

So that example does not hold water.


Atavus said:

Quote

but two people of legal age should be allowed to say I do, wherever, whenever to whomever.

"God said so" is not an adequate standard Yama...I happen to be Wiccan, and if you are refering to the judaeo-christian god- for me he doesn't count as he doesn't exist.

Poly, Conservative and Wiccan
I realize your quote of me was not what Atavus actually said.  However, I think it is the logic behind the rational of what he said.

And WHY is cruelty to animals against the law?

Aren't you infringing on the rights of adults who enjoy themselves by being cruel to animals?

Aren't you imposing your own moral standards upon those who do not believe the way you do?

Serious questions, please answer.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#28 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 07:50 PM

And Why, aside from the Bible, are you opposed to gay marriage?  Does it harm you?  Does it harm ANYONE?  I can't believe you would even dare equate it to cruelty to animals which IS harmful.  It's ridiculous.  Specious even.
Posted Image

#29 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 07:50 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Dec 18 2003, 11:07 PM, said:

Well at the risk of stirring the pot, my view is that the reason people who oppose gay marriage on the grounds that "the Bigle said so" need to rely on the Bible to support their argument (despite the fact that the Bible is full of a lot of nonsense about bull burning, slavery and shellfish that most people consider nonsense) is that if they *can't* rely on that then maybe they have to look at what is really motivating their feelings, which is uncomfortable.  I think the problem is compounded by the casual use (and yes I'm guilty of it) of words like "homophobe" and "bigot".  Maybe if people could be made to feel a little more comfortable about examining and perhaps even addressing their biases (and we all have biases, sheesh) without the use of such ugly words, a little progress could be made.

My two dinars of course.  ;)

Lil
And the Bible is also full of stuff like, "Love thy neighbor."

Indeed, if you study the history of the abolistionist movement, they were motivated by their reading and understading of the Bible.  Yes, others used their understadning of the Bible to support slavery but that still does not negate or diminish the fact that those opposed to slavery were motivated by the same book.

My point is, why is it any less "legitimate" (admittedly, my word, not yours) for someone to be motivated or take their position on a subject based upon their understanding of the Bible than for any other reason?

Why must someone who opposes gay marriage need "to look at what is really motivating their feelings, which is uncomfortable"?
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#30 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 07:55 PM

Because it doesn't make any sense (note I'm talking about people who lean on the Bible for it--some people seem to think that *no one* should be allowed to marry unless they can have kids, which is a different issue).  It's none of your business, it's not hurting anyone.  And since it doesn't make any sense I ask you:  why?
Posted Image

#31 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 07:55 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Dec 19 2003, 12:50 AM, said:

And Why, aside from the Bible, are you opposed to gay marriage?  Does it harm you?  Does it harm ANYONE?  I can't believe you would even dare equate it to cruelty to animals which IS harmful.  It's ridiculous.  Specious even.
To take your second point first, PROVE that cruelty to animals is harmful?

On what basis do you make that assertion?

Second, yes, I do think gay marriage harms me.  It harms me by breaking down certain rules in society that I think makes society better and its members more efficient.  Just as polygamy does, just as pedophilia does, and, yes, just as -- in my humble opinion -- cruelty to animals does.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#32 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,611 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 07:56 PM

Yama, on Dec 18 2003, 05:39 PM, said:

However, I do think many pro-gay rights supporters use the exact same logic as NAMBLA and are afraid to face that fact.  Indeed, Cardie, even you avoid addressing the issue.

Until recently, the U.S. judicial system had a long history of not supporting or condoning homosexual relationships.  So are you saying that if the courts start supporting child/adult relationships, such relationships would become as morally sancrosanct as adult homosexual ones now?
What I don't see is that allowing adults of the same sex to marry will suddenly open the floodgates to legalize adult-child sexual relationships when centuries of allowing couples of the opposite sex to marry hasn't done so. (Indeed, children were far less of a protected class in those eras when anyone who advocated same-sex marriages would probably have been burned at the stake. So I see the evolution of legal opinion in this matter as wholly separate from attitudes toward gay rights. Judicial opinion has been moving in one direction on the one and in precisely the opposite direction on the other.) Whenever the pedophilia issue is brought up as an objection to gay marriage it seems to imply that pedophilia is a logical outgrowth of homosexuality, but not heterosexuality, even though there are just as many pedophiles preying on the opposite sex as the same one.

For the record, I think government never should have become involved with granting legal status to religious sacraments. The legal status of domestic partnerships should only concern those partnerships as a contractual relationship, with legal protections and custody guidelines for children written into the contract. Religions are free to decide whom to grant sacraments to according to their beliefs. I'm sure that there will be some faith communities that choose to bless same-sex unions, and if someone wants to belong to a community that doesn't, even if he or she is gay, then they have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#33 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 07:57 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Dec 19 2003, 12:55 AM, said:

Because it doesn't make any sense (note I'm talking about people who lean on the Bible for it--some people seem to think that *no one* should be allowed to marry unless they can have kids, which is a different issue).  It's none of your business, it's not hurting anyone.  And since it doesn't make any sense I ask you:  why?
It doesn't make sense to YOU.  But to them, it does.  And they have just as much "right" and "validity" to their opinion as you do to yours.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#34 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 08:01 PM

I believe that consenting adults should be allowed to enter into whatever marriage contracts they are willing to consider binding between or among themselves.

As my mom used to say, your rights end where other people's noses begin. I do not condone anything that causes physical harm to other persons or to animals (and no, I'm not a vegetarian and yes, I think hunting as a sport is barbaric - it stopped being acceptable to me when it was no longer necessary to put food on the table).

That's my full answer. If a group marriage served the best interests of the people involved (and the children), I'd say go for it. Gay marriages do no harm - I know many gay couples who have raised healthy, happy families without the endorsement of the church or the state - but who wished fervently they could have had both. I think polygamy is a crappy institution because I can't help believing that it shortchanges the women involved. But if they could convince me that the relationship was happy and healthy, then I'd go for that, too.

I am simply do not believe that the state or the feds should tell adults who are beyond the age of consent who they may or may not marry.

As for pedophiles, they are the scum of the earth as far as I'm concerned, and I have never seen any studies that would convince that there's such a thing as a rehabilitated pedophile - it seems to be an overriding compulsion.

As far as the example of 2 people beating up on each other, you bet your ass I'd call the cops. Would I get in the middle and try to stop them? No way.

OTOH, I was in a situation once where a woman was married to a man with a rare form of epilepsy in which the seizures take the form of violent behavior.  She felt sorry for him and let him beat up on her. My feeling? She was an adult and made the choice to be there - if she got beaten up, she had no one else to blame. But when he flipped out and barricaded himself in the apartment with their 2-year-old son, you bet your butt I interefered. She didn't even want to call the police, and I called them myself. Abusive relationships are a complicated dynamic, but I will not stand by and see a child abused if I can do something about it.

Yama, since I'm not sure what your question really is, I don't know if I answered it. <shrug> This is the best that I can do.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#35 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 08:01 PM

Cardie, on Dec 19 2003, 12:56 AM, said:

Yama, on Dec 18 2003, 05:39 PM, said:



However, I do think many pro-gay rights supporters use the exact same logic as NAMBLA and are afraid to face that fact.  Indeed, Cardie, even you avoid addressing the issue.

Until recently, the U.S. judicial system had a long history of not supporting or condoning homosexual relationships.  So are you saying that if the courts start supporting child/adult relationships, such relationships would become as morally sancrosanct as adult homosexual ones now?
What I don't see is that allowing adults of the same sex to marry will suddenly open the floodgates to legalize adult-child sexual relationships when centuries of allowing couples of the opposite sex to marry hasn't done so. (Indeed, children were far less of a protected class in those eras when anyone who advocated same-sex marriages would probably have been burned at the stake. So I see the evolution of legal opinion in this matter as wholly separate from attitudes toward gay rights. Judicial opinion has been moving in one direction on the one and in precisely the opposite direction on the other.) Whenever the pedophilia issue is brought up as an objection to gay marriage it seems to imply that pedophilia is a logical outgrowth of homosexuality, but not heterosexuality, even though there are just as many pedophiles preying on the opposite sex as the same one.

I'm not saying that allowing same-sex marriages will "open the floodgates to legalize adult-child sexual relationships".  But I am saying that the reasoning behind the one can (and is, see NAMBLA) used by the other.

And I will add, that is a fact that those who support gay marriages go out of their way to avoid.

Cardie, on Dec 19 2003, 12:56 AM, said:

For the record, I think government never should have become involved with granting legal status to religious sacraments. The legal status of domestic partnerships should only concern those partnerships as a contractual relationship, with legal protections and custody guidelines for children written into the contract. Religions are free to decide whom to grant sacraments to according to their beliefs. I'm sure that there will be some faith communities that choose to bless same-sex unions, and if someone wants to belong to a community that doesn't, even if he or she is gay, then they have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages.

Cardie

Believe it or not, we may be mostly in agreement here.

In fact, believe it or not, I in some ways can support same-sex legal unions.  My question is why must there be gay marriages?

Edited by Yama, 18 December 2003 - 08:05 PM.

Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#36 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 08:03 PM

Yama, on Dec 18 2003, 04:55 PM, said:

 
Um, it hurts the animal.  It causes them physical pain and often death.  What kind of question is that.  

Quote

It harms me by breaking down certain rules in society that I think makes society better and its members more efficient.

How does it make society better?  How does it make its citizens more efficient?

Quote

It doesn't make sense to YOU. But to them, it does. And they have just as much "right" and "validity" to their opinion as you do to yours.

And I have a right to question it.  What is hysterical is that no one ever has an answer that isn't circular.  So I'll ask you again:  WHY.

Further, no one is trying to force churches to accept gay marriages or even force you to approve of it.  The issue is whether gays aren't entitled to equality before the law.  I hear you saying "No."  I'm asking you why.  You continue to refuse to answer.  Which is sort of an answer on its own isn't it.  It suggests that you don't HAVE a rational answer.  Which is where we get to the issue of bias.  I think you're just plain old uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality and that *this*, not some concern for social well being or adherence to the Bible, is why you oppose gay marriages.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Lil
Posted Image

#37 Cressid

Cressid
  • Islander
  • 50 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 08:13 PM

Sticking my nose in here just to say that I don't have a "God said so" defense to fall back on, so therefore I have to take responsibility for my own thoughts and beliefs.  

2 people who understand what love is and who have been able to give that to each other for almost 60 years?  Bravo.   Love is about more than genitals.

#38 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 08:13 PM

Rhea, on Dec 19 2003, 01:01 AM, said:

... I know many gay couples who have raised healthy, happy families without the endorsement of the church or the state ...
If it could be left there, then I could be happy.  Yes, even I have a "live and let live 'gene'" that kicks in every now and then.  My question is, given what you write above, why do they need the "sanctity" of marriage?

Probably the best way of summing up my issue with supporters of gay marriage is that they are imposing their moral viewpoint on others even as they deny the rights of others to impose the moral viewpoint that gay marriages are wrong on them.  And what I find extremely "funny" is that every argument in support of gay marriage can be used to support pedophilia, polygamy or whatever.

And yes, as a very real example of that, I do use NAMBLA.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#39 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 08:23 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Dec 19 2003, 01:03 AM, said:

Yama, on Dec 18 2003, 04:55 PM, said:

 
Um, it hurts the animal.  It causes them physical pain and often death.  What kind of question is that.  

Quote

It harms me by breaking down certain rules in society that I think makes society better and its members more efficient.

How does it make society better?  How does it make its citizens more efficient?

Quote

It doesn't make sense to YOU. But to them, it does. And they have just as much "right" and "validity" to their opinion as you do to yours.

And I have a right to question it.  What is hysterical is that no one ever has an answer that isn't circular.  So I'll ask you again:  WHY.

Further, no one is trying to force churches to accept gay marriages or even force you to approve of it.  The issue is whether gays aren't entitled to equality before the law.  I hear you saying "No."  I'm asking you why.  You continue to refuse to answer.  Which is sort of an answer on its own isn't it.  It suggests that you don't HAVE a rational answer.  Which is where we get to the issue of bias.  I think you're just plain old uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality and that *this*, not some concern for social well being or adherence to the Bible, is why you oppose gay marriages.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Lil
But animals aren't people.  Your answer assumes that animals have a "moral worth" that not everyone grants them. Again, prove me wrong?

As for how it makes society better, I refer you to the list I gave Atavus above.

And the answer of Bible-believers is no more "circular" than any other.

Finally, you are absolutely WRONG when you say, "no one is trying to force churches to accept gay marriages or even force you to approve of it."

That's the crux of the matter.  Churches (example: see the Episcopalian church in New Hampshire), governments and individuals are being forced to accept it.  To paraphrase one of my old signature lines here on Ex Isle:

If it's none of my business who you sleep with in the privacy of your own bedroom, why do you seem so deadset on telling me?
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#40 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,611 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 08:27 PM

Yama, on Dec 18 2003, 08:13 PM, said:

And what I find extremely "funny" is that every argument in support of gay marriage can be used to support pedophilia, polygamy or whatever.
I guess I must be reading different arguments for gay marriage, but while I can see the logic leading to the legalization of polygamy, or even adult incest, I can't see it leading to pedophilia, since the way I read it is that anyone who would be legally eligible to enter into a union with a person of the opposite sex (and this does not in the USA include eight-year-olds) be legally eligible to enter into a union with an adult person of the same sex. Striking down miscegenation laws didn't lead to legalizing pedophilia, and I see the legal argument to permit gay civil marriage being made on precisely the same equal protection grounds. The fact that a religious sacrament and a civil partnership have been legally blurred for so long is what leads to all the confusion in my eyes.

Cardie

Edited by Cardie, 18 December 2003 - 08:27 PM.

Nothing succeeds like excess.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Canada, same-sex marriage, eloped

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users