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

#81 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 20 December 2003 - 04:35 AM

Uncle Sid, on Dec 19 2003, 11:56 PM, said:

In terms of gay marriage, there are people out there who oppose it for pragmatic reasons, for religious reasons, and also for both.  As I said, not granting people the ability to make decisions on their values, no matter how they are derived, is the mark of an unfree society.  Their arguments may not convince you, but they're not doing anything strange or insidious.  On the other hand, expecting them to disregard their values simply because you label them as undesirably "religious" is not in keeping with the spirit of free expression.
They are entiled to their opinion. But the law has to be fair *and* just. Like when they gave blacks and women the right to vote. When they repealed the miscegency marriage laws. Even if they came up against a lot of opposition. And thats all I see it as.

Giving fair and just rights to a previous group of people denied them.

A group of people who *aren't* harming other people (killing, raping, beating, or taking advantage of the young). At least not any more than heterosexual couples do eachother ;) :D

Quote

But more particularly, I think that marriage is one of the defining institutions of who and what we are as a society. Perhaps more, it is one of those "customs" or "tradtions" that defines us as human. It provides the best means of raising children and has even been correlated to individual productivity and health; even when compared with "long-term" relationships (both heterosexual and homosexual). As such, I hold it sancrosanct and think it should be limited to a man and a woman.

And who said all these benefits in marriage couldn't happen in a gay (or straight) civil union or marriage? We have no data on that to compare it to. I think it would have the same advantages in a gay union, personally. And as for "customs" or "traditions" which defines us as Humans. Only, and *all* humans defines what is humans, and as some of the anthropology majors in here have shown, Western's customs and traditions about "proper" relationships for love-making aren't the only ones in human history.

Edited by sierraleone, 20 December 2003 - 05:07 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#82 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 01:05 AM

Cardie, on Dec 19 2003, 08:47 PM, said:

... Because I personally am talking about the issue of equal protection under the law for the secular aspects only of such a partnership. Who is sleeping with whom and whether or not some people feel that is immoral would not figure into things. ...
Cardie
But Cardie, the irony and unavoidable fact of what you have written is that you have just made a moral judgement!

To decide, as you have, that "who is sleeping with whom and whether or not some people feel that is immoral would not figure into things" IS to make a moral judgment.  Only after you have made that moral judgment do you consider "the issue of equal protection under the law for the secular aspects only of such a partnership" (which, as a matter of fact, is a moral judgment, too).

Again, you have the right to make your moral judgment; even as I disagree with it.  My argument is that you are making such a moral judgment and then denying the rights of others to do the same when they disagree with you.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#83 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 01:21 AM

sierraleone, on Dec 20 2003, 09:35 AM, said:

... But the law has to be fair *and* just. ...
But define "fair *and* just".

Laws that prohibit bashing the skulls of puppies in are not "fair *and* just" to those who may enjoy it.

Laws that forbid the sexual abuse of children are not "fair *and* just" to those who are only aroused in such a  fashion.

Laws that punish stealing are not "fair *and* just" to kleptomaniacs.

And personally, I am glad the laws pertaining all three issues above are not "fair *and* just" to those that violate them.

ALL Law discriminates agaist those who violate or are inclined to violate them.  What first happens is that society makes the moral judgement as to whether or not the activity should be punished, discouraged or in other ways regulated.  There is nothing sancrosanct about homosexual behaviour.  (Unless, of course, you make the moral judgment that it is: but if you make that moral judgement, I have the right to make the moral judgment to disagree.)

sierraleone, on Dec 20 2003, 09:35 AM, said:

And who said all these benefits in marriage couldn't happen in a gay (or straight) civil union or marriage? We have no data on that to compare it to. I think it would have the same advantages in a gay union, personally. And as for "customs" or "traditions" which defines us as Humans. Only, and *all* humans defines what is humans, and as some of the anthropology majors in here have shown, Western's customs and traditions about "proper" relationships for love-making aren't the only ones in human history.

As to the first part, I have referenced some material I an earlier post.  Although, admittedly, not exactly what O was loking for.

As to the latter part, your point is a non-sequitur.  We all define what human is but all of us in some ways enforces that idea on others.  An excellent case in point is the argument we are having over gay marriage.  But to emphasize the point by introducing subjects we just may on, their is a custom of "female castration" in certain parts of west Africa; I oppose that and work to have the practice stopped.  For that matter, there is still chattel slavery in the Sudan and, yes, I am trying to "impose" my Western customs and traditions on the Sudanese and end slavery there.

Again, "*all* humans defines what is humans[sic]" but we each and all influence what that definition is upon others.

Edited by Yama, 21 December 2003 - 01:33 AM.

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

#84 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 01:24 AM

Quote

But Cardie, the irony and unavoidable fact of what you have written is that you have just made a moral judgement!

Ah, WHAT?!

That is quite twisted logic in my book, and I so disagree with your conclusions.

In fact I find it hard to think that Cardie is making a moral judgment at all, and you are just  justifying yours.

Your are free to make your moral judgment for yourself, but ascribing motives to someone else so you feel justified, well, while you are free to do it, I just don't buy it!


Edit to clarify which post I was replying to.

Edited by GiGi, 21 December 2003 - 01:26 AM.

"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#85 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 01:40 AM

GiGi, on Dec 21 2003, 06:24 AM, said:

Quote

But Cardie, the irony and unavoidable fact of what you have written is that you have just made a moral judgement!

Ah, WHAT?!

That is quite twisted logic in my book, and I so disagree with your conclusions.

In fact I find it hard to think that Cardie is making a moral judgment at all, and you are just  justifying yours.

Your are free to make your moral judgment for yourself, but ascribing motives to someone else so you feel justified, well, while you are free to do it, I just don't buy it!


Edit to clarify which post I was replying to.
GiGi, I'm sorry but you are just plain wrong.

If Cardie has not made a moral judgment, then she would say equally that yes it does matter to her "who is sleeping with whom" as she now says it doesn't.  But she made a moral judgment not to care.

That's fine for her.  You probably agree with her.  But I am afraid that it is still a moral judgement!
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#86 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 01:46 AM

the'Hawk, on Dec 19 2003, 06:41 PM, said:

Kevin Street, on Dec 19 2003, 01:13 PM, said:

Perhaps the reason this topic generates so much controversy is because relgion and law are all tangled up, and seperating them might make things easier. A legal acceptance of same sex unions shouldn't be the same thing as a religious accceptance of the concept. That's something the individual religions should decide for themselves.
Well said, Kevin.

It comes down to separation of church and state. I can accept a legal definition of civil union, so long as that definition of civil union doesn't force me to concede that the sacrament of marriage is just the same thing. Because it isn't. There is a difference between the institution of marriage and the sacrament of marriage. It might be my institutional duty to live with, pay taxes with, and make various other arrangements pertaining to that institution (such as declaring my spouse's income, accommodating the government's census information, etc.), but my sacramental duty, as a Catholic (presuming that I marry a Catholic, which, let's say, I do), is to keep the faith, both for myself and for my wife. Whoever she is to be.

The Catholic model isn't the most perfect example to use, nor is it the most accommodating, but it's the only one I really know. Thus, my limitations in the discussion. While I'm certain that the sacrament should be defended from all attacks, I don't see the institution of civil union as endangering it, simply because civil union is a necessary part of the government's accommodating the chosen living arrangements of the people.

If, as is being argued, there was this sudden, explosive shift in the moral acceptability of pedophilia, and it became acceptable for people to have sex with minors, then my expectation would be that the government would legislate towards the general will. But that would require overturning a long-standing legal tradition of protecting the well-being of children by accepting the notion that they are minors. This is not something that would change simply after a fashion. So I find the comparison of gay marriage to "what pedophiles want" rather out of hand and completely off-topic, simply because while legal attitudes towards forms of civil union are taking a turn towards a more inclusive definition, legal attitudes towards pedophilia surely aren't shifting in any inclusive direction. If they were making such a shift, I'd be one of the first out on the barricades, in protest.

:cool:
the 'Hawk, believe it or not, I agree with much of what you write.  Definitely not all, but very much.  The only thing I would like to add is that, again, as a matter of principle, I find it hard to justify how we can both be "out on the barricades, in protest" against pedophilia in the future (and yes, I would be right there with you) unless I can be "out on the barricades, in protest" against gay marriage now.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#87 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 01:48 AM

Uncle Sid, great points!

Whatever your position on gay marriage (and I will be honest and say that I suspect we agree), you are highlighting the points I was trying to make better than I was.

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

#88 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 01:54 AM

Yama, in your mind.

You are twisting her words into a pretzel to justify your argument.  She was talking metaphorically, your are switching it to literal to make your case make sense.

I understood the spirit of her post.  And I totally agree with it.

I get it that you have a problem with gay marriage.  Other of us don't.  But it is up to the lawmakers as to what privileges and titles will be awarded to them or not. So it is out of our hands anyway.

As I said in a previous post the University of California system already allows for benefits to be awarded to gay domestic partners who don't even have to be married.  Us who are not gay on the other hand have to be married to get those benefits.   I would have never married unless it was to get the benefits, I was content to be a "domestic partner."  That and I didn't want the ex-wife diving into my bank account for money for the stepkids.  A prenupt took care of that (at least I hope).

I do believe that a separation of church policy on marriage (of any type) and the civil arraignments is a good idea.  As it stands it is confusing. (we did an ancient Celt ceremony and our "minister" was Jewish, my maid of honor was Romany, and the best man into Native American ceremony, it was great!)

Edited by GiGi, 21 December 2003 - 01:55 AM.

"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#89 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 01:59 AM

Agreed.  To deny the applicability of a certain morality to a situation is to automatically imply a moral decision of one's own, unless one is specifically acting in contravention of their own morality.  In the event of such a contravention, then the morality in question may be weak or inconsistent, however, it is never totally absent.  Note, there are many thinks I am certain that would be considered to be beyond the pale for people who otherwise would not wish for certain other moral judgements to be made.  For instance certain cultural matters like female castration.  Especially in the situation where the behavior is cultural and self-perpetuating, instead of forced by an outside party, it is an invasive moral judgement for one to interfere with something like female castration, just the same as it is an invasive moral judgement, to oppose homosexual relationships.  

No human interaction is free of moral judgements.  Any pretense to the opposite is simply absurd.  There is only this pretense because people have made "morality" into a dirty word, like they have discrimination and judgement.  Everybody makes judgements every day which affect their relations with others and all of them have a moral element to them.  Whenever you make a judgement that does not come straight out of a mathematical formula or a scientific theory, you're relying on your values to make that judgement.  Indeed, pure science itself is rarely in evidence as researchers tend to frame theories in manners that they feel the most comfortable with.  Being accepting and tolerant of other cultures is a value, itself it is part of a particular morality.  While some might say that there are objective value to tolerance, if you scratch under the surface, the yardstick by which this is measured "objectively" is a moral yardstick.  If you decide that it is wrong to judge someone else's relationship, you are putting a moral value on privacy and individuality.  There is, however, nothing that says that privacy or individuality is any better than the alternative.  Any social activity where choice is involved also involves morality.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#90 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 02:00 AM

Yama, on Dec 20 2003, 10:46 PM, said:

unless I can be "out on the barricades, in protest" against gay marriage now.
No one is saying you can't do this.

We are just saying that we don't think pedophila is the same issue.  I am very much against pedophila, my husband was a victem of it (from a Catholic priest).

You can protest all you want, it's cool, I just won't be joining you unless it is a march against pedophiles.  (which could be outside Neverland Ranch...we'll see...) :crazy:  :wacko:
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#91 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 03:41 AM

Yama, on Dec 20 2003, 10:21 PM, said:

sierraleone, on Dec 20 2003, 09:35 AM, said:

... But the law has to be fair *and* just. ...
But define "fair *and* just".

Laws that prohibit bashing the skulls of puppies in are not "fair *and* just" to those who may enjoy it.

Laws that forbid the sexual abuse of children are not "fair *and* just" to those who are only aroused in such a  fashion.

Laws that punish stealing are not "fair *and* just" to kleptomaniacs.

And personally, I am glad the laws pertaining all three issues above are not "fair *and* just" to those that violate them.

ALL Law discriminates agaist those who violate or are inclined to violate them.  What first happens is that society makes the moral judgement as to whether or not the activity should be punished, discouraged or in other ways regulated.  There is nothing sancrosanct about homosexual behaviour.  (Unless, of course, you make the moral judgment that it is: but if you make that moral judgement, I have the right to make the moral judgment to disagree.)
All of those examples, in which someone is harmed in some way, are not fair and just to the victims of those crimes (the puppies, the children, the victims of theft). I don't see victims of homosexual civil unions -

There are some that disagree, yes, but they aren't victims of homosexual unions. One could argue they are victims of it being legalized  :wacko: but I don't see many people being harmed by this, though I'm sure there are people out there that disagree because they think homosexual relationships are harmfull in and of themselves. But both side's arguements are circular, or being made circular.

Those laws are fair and just, because they take both parties into consideration. Both the perpetrator, and the victim. There names/desiginations/etc already tells you someone is being harmed. There are not usually criminals and victims in a domestic partnership because of the genders of those in the partnership. And I don't agree with your comparing homosexual civil unions to physically or financially hurting people.

With the equations your are making, you are making it out that people that disagree with the law are the victims of homosexual civil unions.... you could make it out to be that they are not being treated fairly by the law, and therefor victims because it was legalized, but its hard to make people against it as victims *of* homosexual unions when they are not part of homosexual unions, and people don't generally consider themselves victims of such institutions as marriage... unless their marriage/union is falling apart ;) :D But the law has to take a stance (even if its just remaining status-quo.... gawd I'm glad I live in Canada :p :D ), and its going to end up not agreeing with someone, so by *your* definition its not going to be fair or just to someone. Please don't compare criminal law to a domestic partnership or civil union please though, it doesn't accomplise anything except making the arguements seem ridiculous.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#92 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 04:11 AM

I don't know that civil and criminal law are all that different.  We percieve them as such, but they are both social tools.  Honestly, I'd agree more with the person who says that civil unions or marriages should not be the province of government than I would that because they exist for one they should exist for another.  

In this case, if you are against such civil unions, you might easily state that there are a number of potential victims of civil unions.  Right now, although there are some accomodations in existence already, nomosexual civil unions are not really all that common.  However, what happens when they are considered to be equivalent to marriages?  Looking at that, let's completely ignore the moral side of this for people and look narrowly at some material benefits of marriage.  

Right now, those people who are married have a number of advantages, many of which are based on certain assumptions.  For instance, an unmarried man will generally have to pay higher auto insurance premiums than a married man.  The assumption, actually this is more than an assumption - the statistics point to married men being more stable and better risks in general.  Frequently this is not only attributed to simple relationship stability, but also it is related to a relationship of a male with a woman.  Note, a single female pays a less for an auto insurance premium than a married male with the same driving record.  Thus, a real financial benefit from marriage results.  

Now, what happens when you force an insurance company to treat a homosexual marriage as being equivalent to a heterosexual one.  Assuming that you are dealing with two lesbians, in theory, you aren't really changing anything.  Females are better risks, and the might be even better risks together, however, what about the statistics of two males together?  While a stable relationship between two males *may* have some positive effect on their behavior, they're still men and even together, represent a higher risk.  In the end, therefore, unless insurance companies are allowed to discriminate between male homosexual unions and the other sorts, it is quite likely that at the very least this will translate into a modest increase in premiums for all married couples of any variety since the higher risk pool is forcibly merged into a lower one.  Could we then not see that there are indeed some potential victims of homosexual unions being recognized as equivalent by law?

People look at certain things as "victimless", when in reality, it's only that we don't have the data nor the ability to understand how people can be victimized by certain actions.  No matter what, there is a decent chance that any measure has the potential to hurt someone, and in the case of something as societally important as marriage, that chance is much, much higher.  I'm not talking about mental distress of people having to look at gay people getting married.  Reducing the issue to that level is simplistic and misleading.  I've written it before, and I'm writing it now: civil marriage isn't about love.  Civil marriage is about controlling certain behaviors.  It is not based on a right, it is a governmental/social means to control natural reproduction in a society.  The existence of a lot of benefits for marriage is based on that.  Removing certain qualifications for marriage will probably not cause society to implode, but it could cause marriage to lose much of its civil benefits and thus find itself just becoming another oversubscribed, but basically meaningless appendix of an institution.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#93 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 02:24 PM

GiGi, on Dec 21 2003, 07:00 AM, said:

Yama, on Dec 20 2003, 10:46 PM, said:

unless I can be "out on the barricades, in protest" against gay marriage now.
No one is saying you can't do this.

We are just saying that we don't think pedophila is the same issue.  I am very much against pedophila, my husband was a victem of it (from a Catholic priest).

You can protest all you want, it's cool, I just won't be joining you unless it is a march against pedophiles.  (which could be outside Neverland Ranch...we'll see...) :crazy:  :wacko:
For the record, I am not saying that pedophilai is the same issue as gay marriage. What I am saying is that the REASONING used in support of the one is the same as used in support of the other.  Namely, the "you don't have a right to inflict your moral opinion upon those who disagree with you" defense.

And again, I think that line of reasoning is absurd.  ALL law, of whatever nature, inflicts a moral opinion upon those who disagre with it.

But if you are saying that I may protest against gay marriage, then I am glad that you (and Rhea and Cardie, etc.) don'y mind as I work for a constitutional amendment thaht bans gay marraige.  Thank you. :angel:

PS. We probably agree about "wacko Jacko" but that is a conversation for another thread.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#94 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 02:42 PM

sierraleone, on Dec 21 2003, 08:41 AM, said:

Yama, on Dec 20 2003, 10:21 PM, said:

... Laws that prohibit bashing the skulls of puppies in are not "fair *and* just" to those who may enjoy it. ...
... All of those examples, in which someone is harmed in some way, are not fair and just to the victims of those crimes (the puppies, the children, the victims of theft). ...
sierraleone, although I like dogs as pets as much as the next person, but puppies are NOT people UNLESS YOU make a moral judgement that they are, or are at least granted some moral worth to be entitled to some sort of legal protection.  And once you do and you enact laws for their safety and protection, you begin to enforce laws that are not "fair *and* just" for those who disagree with your conception of the moral worth of puppies.

Case in point, even here on Ex Isle there is the discussion of Taiwan Lawmakers Banning Sell of Dog Meat (http://www.exisle.ne...showtopic=10826)

Didn't the Taiwanese lawmakers discriminate against those who think dog meat as food when they enacted their law?

And what's the difference between killing puppies for pleasure and killing them for food, unless YOU make a moral judgement that there is a moral difference.  Indeed, how can you call laws that forbid the killing and eating of dogs in the United States and Canada "fair *and* just" to those Taiwanese and Korean immigrants who think of dog meat as a culiniary delicacy?

Especially how do you justify it when you yourself probably eat hamburgers (which requires killing a cow) and bacon (which requires killing a pig, an animal generally considered smarter than a dog, by the way).




I confess, I simply find it amazing the extent some people will go to in order to avoid the fact that they make moral decisions which they inflict upon those with whom they disagree.

Edited by Yama, 21 December 2003 - 02:48 PM.

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

#95 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 02:52 PM

Yama, on Dec 21 2003, 11:24 AM, said:

For the record, I am not saying that pedophilai is the same issue as gay marriage. What I am saying is that the REASONING used in support of the one is the same as used in support of the other.
<snip>
But if you are saying that I may protest against gay marriage, then I am glad that you (and Rhea and Cardie, etc.) don'y mind as I work for a constitutional amendment thaht bans gay marraige.  Thank you. :angel:

PS. We probably agree about "wacko Jacko" but that is a conversation for another thread.
I understand that you are using the same reasoning, while logically true, I don't see people following that logic, the illogical creatures we are.  We easily recognize that a child is harmed and harmed badly by sexual abuse.  I can't say the same about gay civil marriage.

Of course I am saying you can protest against gay marriage, it is your right to follow your beliefs as it is my right to follow mine.  No I don't mind that you are working on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.  I support your feelings that you must follow your convictions.  I just don't agree, that is all.  

I am not a law maker, so it is not up to me about as to whether gay unions will be recognized by the law. (which is the only think I am supporting, I am not in support of forcing religions to marry gays if it is morally against their beliefs)

Glad we agree about "Wacko Jacko"  After we watched the special on his life in Feb., my stepsons (age 12 & 14) freaked out at the idea of staying overnight at his house.  Good for them I say!
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#96 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 03:14 PM

The reasoning is no different than the reasoning behind allowing a black man to marry a white woman or a black man to vote or a woman to vote.  The idea that allowing same sex marriage is some how going to lead to the legalization or moralization of pedophilia is preposterous.
Posted Image

#97 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 03:28 PM

^ Thanks Lil, bravo for being blunt and to the point!
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#98 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 03:30 PM

Quote

I understand that you are using the same reasoning, while logically true, I don't see people following that logic, the illogical creatures we are. We easily recognize that a child is harmed and harmed badly by sexual abuse. I can't say the same about gay civil marriage.

Thank you Gigi

Quote

I confess, I simply find it amazing the extent some people will go to in order to avoid the fact that they make moral decisions which they inflict upon those with whom they disagree.

I haven't said I'm not making a moral decision. Everyone is. But I am truely offended you are comparing gay unions to beating dogs, abusing children, and stealing. Sure, I'm making another moral opinion about hurting people (or creatures) are worse than letting whomever (of legal age and mutual consent) marry whomever. You seem to be going out of your way to sensationalize this. Moral opinion this all away if you like, but pointlessly harming another person or creature is usually considered to be worse than most other wrongs. There are Commandments against killing, stealing, adultery and even lying (9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor). I personally don't know of any commandments against laziness, tardyiness, mouthiness (except perhaps against parents).

My comparisons might not be completely justified from a religious point of view (when the laws against interracial marriages were repealled for one... and I wouldn't be surprised if some of religious people who were against it back then had a religious reason for being against it), but its more accurate IMNSH Moral opinion, then comparing it to dog or child beating.

There is no way out of offending someone's moral sensibilities, and the Law should do what it thinks is right, under the law, whether or not the majority agree with it or not.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#99 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 03:52 PM

GiGi, on Dec 21 2003, 12:28 PM, said:

^ Thanks Lil, bravo for being blunt and to the point!
You're welcome.  I'm not feeling well so my patience is at a low point today.  

Lil
Posted Image

#100 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,633 posts

Posted 21 December 2003 - 05:11 PM

Yama, you seem to be having an argument with people who say "you have no right to foist your morality on me" but are aiming it in my direction, when that was never the argument I used.  I quote my most important point from above:

Quote

Yet, while morality underlies the establishment of laws by human beings, the law of any land will never criminalize or prevent every practice that at least some of its members find immoral. This is a delicate, ever-evolving negotiation in any given culture.

Of course my opinion that gay sexual relations and gay domestic partnerships are not sinful and shouldn't be illegal is a moral judgment, a value judment on my part. It can't be anything else. And there will always be a moral continuum on any issue, with the law invariably having to draw a line at a point that will seem a denial of rights to some and an authorization of moral horror to others. Your dog meat argument makes just that point. The American puppy lover, the Asian dogmeat eater, and the PETA vegan are going to have very different views on how the law currently stands.

If I believed that sexual relationships of the sort condemned in the Bible disqualified a couple from entering into a civil union in the 21st century, I'd equally exclude the couple who divorced their spouses after having an adulterous affair along with the same-sex couple. Perhaps your Constitutional amendment could include this provision too? Perhaps there are subtleties involved which I'm not seeing. A devout Catholic would at least be consistent in denying a Church-sanctioned marriage to either couple. I'm happy to cede a domestic partnership to either, but I don't claim that this is not a moral decision on my part.  My only point about morality-based decision was to challenge what I took to be your meaning, that a moral decision founded on the principles of your faith is by nature superior to a moral decision based on the principles of my faith or on the secular value judgments of a non-believer. I just don't see that the fact of a position being rooted in a particular theology should be the overriding factor in deciding what the secular law should be. It can be a factor, just not, forever and always, the factor.  

I want to thank Uncle Sid for his reasoned responses which stick to the real implications of the issue and don't drag in pedophiles or puppies. What this debate will do, and it is probably a long time overdue, is make us all think long and hard about whether the state should be in the business of granting legal and financial advantages only to people who choose to marry a person of the opposite sex and have children. (As a single, childless person, I'm discriminated against by the tax code big time.  If I'm paying to keep an elderly relative in a good nursing home or subsidizing the day care for a friend's child, I get nothing, whereas the married family with children receives deductions, tax credits and tax cuts galore. On the other hand if said family rents a house they are discriminated against in favor of me because I can deduct my mortgage payments and they can't deduct their rent, but that's another long and endless argument.)

Of course, it's often only when social minorities ask to get in on a privilege that has been reserved for the majority that the majority sometimes rethinks the correctness of the privilege, but perhaps the end justifies the means.

Cardie
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