Jump to content


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

Details in this thread

Not so fast on Same Sex marriages

LGBT Bush Same sex marriage ban

  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#41 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 02:08 PM

Delvo, on Feb 25 2004, 06:48 AM, said:

emsparks, on Feb 24 2004, 06:48 PM, said:

To continue to treat the gay community as second-class citizens is scientifically and morally inhumane.
Every time I'm jsut about ready to join the pro-gay side on this, I see one of their advocates pull out something like this to push me back away again. "Second-class citizens"? Get real.
I just started yet another course of chemo, and I havenít the strength to deal with the fact that the gay community are by a majority of Americans considered as sinners. Please tell me, when it has been, since the days of our pilgrim fore fathers, havenít a community of sinners been considered an under class, a pariah.

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#42 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 02:17 PM

I do find it highly ironic that the Mayor of SF says he thinks Bush should keep his hands off the Constitution...However, this same Mayor has no qualms about breaking State law and violating his own State's Constitution.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#43 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 02:35 PM

LORD of the SWORD, on Feb 25 2004, 07:15 PM, said:

I do find it highly ironic that the Mayor of SF says he thinks Bush should keep his hands off the Constitution...However, this same Mayor has no qualms about breaking State law and violating his own State's Constitution.
With respect I wasnít aware at this point that the courts have ruled against the mayorís challenge to the states marriage law. The mayor of San Francisco, is exercising his right to challenge a law in court. Unfortunately to my level of knowledge the only way to challenge the constitutionality of a law, is to break it and have the court hear your case. That is how in part constitutional law is affirmed. Under the circumstances, the circumstances of all constitutional challenge, the mayor of San Francisco, is proceeding the only way he can.

So the fact that the Mayor is breaking the law is at this point a non sequitur, when it comes to the morality of his actions.

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#44 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 02:38 PM

^ I don't accept "legal" and "moral" as synonyms anyway. I hope no one does or we're all in big trouble.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#45 Rhys

Rhys

    ... a learning experience.

  • Islander
  • 5,491 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 02:46 PM

emsparks, on Feb 25 2004, 02:06 PM, said:

I just started yet another course of chemo, and I haven?t the strength to deal with the fact that the gay community are by a majority of Americans considered as sinners. Please tell me, when it has been, since the days of our pilgrim fore fathers, haven?t a community of sinners been considered an under class, a pariah.
But we're all sinners.

Rhys
"It's easy to bond over hating something together - The Internet is total proof of that." Cyd/Codex, The Guild

Change the world!  No one can do everything, but everyone can do something.

#46 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 02:47 PM

Drew, on Feb 25 2004, 07:36 PM, said:

^ I don't accept "legal" and "moral" as synonyms anyway. I hope no one does or we're all in big trouble.

My impression was that LORD of the SWORD, was commenting on the Mayor saying one thing and doing the opposite, which I have always been taught was a moral failing.
I was not equating legality with morality.

Sparky::

Edited by emsparks, 25 February 2004 - 02:50 PM.

Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#47 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 02:53 PM

Rhys, on Feb 25 2004, 07:44 PM, said:

emsparks, on Feb 25 2004, 02:06 PM, said:

I just started yet another course of chemo, and I haven?t the strength to deal with the fact that the gay community are by a majority of Americans considered as sinners. Please tell me, when it has been, since the days of our pilgrim fore fathers, haven?t a community of sinners been considered an under class, a pariah.
But we're all sinners.

Rhys
True enough... but there is alway someone willing to cast the first stone.

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#48 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 06:11 PM

In fairness, there are many different ways to be a second class citizen.  

On the other hand, that's also the problem with that term.  

Anyone could argue that they are second class for some reason.  I could be a second class citizen because there are jobs and university slots out there that someone could get over me simply due to the color of their skin.  

By many yardsticks, the average gay person is not doing all that badly.  Yes, some get beaten up and many more get called names and get dirty looks.  On the other hand, there's very few groups in this country that haven't been at least slurred in the past.  Even whites.  

Of course, this really has little to do with gay marriage.  Does being beaten up in the past entitle me to a year of maternity leave?  Heck no, I'm a male, what do I need that for?  The primary point against extending *civil* marriage to gays is that there's really no point.  It's not limited to heterosexual couples because heterosexuals are better than gays, it's limited because 2 gay people can't have a child together without the intervention of science or an adoption agency.  Period.  Now, religiously, there are the other issues of sin and such, but they are secondary to the civil situation, even if certain religious and gay groups are trying to make it look that way.

Edited by Uncle Sid, 25 February 2004 - 06:12 PM.

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

#49 Ro-Astarte

Ro-Astarte

    goddess of love and blowing things up

  • Islander
  • 3,842 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 06:22 PM

Quote

? The primary point against extending *civil* marriage to gays is that there's really no point. It's not limited to heterosexual couples because heterosexuals are better than gays, it's limited because 2 gay people can't have a child together without the intervention of science or an adoption agency.

Neither can two 60 year olds who decide to get married.  

Marriage is not limited to a mechanism for having children.  It's a mechanism for sharing legal obligations  and rights between a couple who have decided to mesh their lives together.  How is deciding that one pair of lovers are entitled to it but another is not based on  gender different than deciding it based on race?

Ro

Edited by Ro-Astarte, 25 February 2004 - 06:23 PM.


#50 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 06:26 PM

Ro-Astarte, on Feb 25 2004, 11:20 PM, said:

Quote

? The primary point against extending *civil* marriage to gays is that there's really no point. It's not limited to heterosexual couples because heterosexuals are better than gays, it's limited because 2 gay people can't have a child together without the intervention of science or an adoption agency.

Neither can two 60 year olds who decide to get married.  

Marriage is not limited to a mechanism for having children.  It's a mechanism for sharing legal obligations  and rights between a couple who have decided to mesh their lives together.  How is deciding that one pair of lovers are entitled to it but another is not based on  gender different than deciding it based on race?

Ro
Of all the arguments against gay marriage, this has to be one of the most absurd.  If marriage was strictly about biological reproduction, it would be restricted to fertile couples of childbearing age, with a requirement that the couple start pumping out kids or have the state annul the marriage.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#51 Ro-Astarte

Ro-Astarte

    goddess of love and blowing things up

  • Islander
  • 3,842 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 06:30 PM

I think we may need a Constitutional Amendment.

I'll see about working up a draft.   :devil:

Ro

#52 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 06:32 PM

Marriage may have started out in the realm of procreation, but it isnít only there any more. Many institutions, many of them governmental, define the prerogatives one person has with another, by whether or not that person is their spouse. Nature, God or genetics, call it what you will, has made them what they are, and we have no right to punish them by excluding them from seeing to their loved ones, just because they are not married.
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#53 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 07:04 PM

MuseZack, on Feb 25 2004, 05:24 PM, said:

Of all the arguments against gay marriage, this has to be one of the most absurd.  If marriage was strictly about biological reproduction, it would be restricted to fertile couples of childbearing age, with a requirement that the couple start pumping out kids or have the state annul the marriage.
The fact that there are flaws in the idea's execution, which many believers in the institution actually do argue against and wish to fix, doesn't change what the central idea is. (Nor does it justify adding more flaws in execution.)

#54 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 07:07 PM

emsparks, on Feb 25 2004, 05:30 PM, said:

Marriage may have started out in the realm of procreation, but it isnít only there any more.
True, but that's why some of the other stuff that's gotten attached to it should just be separated from it and handled under a different name and system. You can give everybody these "rights" without pretending that every group of people that wants them fits under the description "marriage".

#55 eryn

eryn

    So, a baby seal walks into a club...

  • Islander
  • 1,638 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 07:37 PM

Well actually, marriage wasnít primarily used for procreation. The main reason was to combine resources so as both partners could survive.

Similarly, in the Cheyenne tribe, there was a third gender called the Berdache. They were men who took of the work of women, dressed as women, and married the male warriors. This was usually done when there was a shortage of women in the tribe. Now just because a Berdache and a male warrior married, that didnít mean that they did The Wild Thing. Instead they combined their mutual resources in order to survive.

This concludes your Anthropology lesson for today. ;)

mystic
If you watch the news and don't like it, then this is your counter program to the news.
Jon Stewart

My Flickr

#56 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 09:27 PM

emsparks, on Feb 25 2004, 02:33 PM, said:

With respect I wasnít aware at this point that the courts have ruled against the mayorís challenge to the states marriage law. The mayor of San Francisco, is exercising his right to challenge a law in court. Unfortunately to my level of knowledge the only way to challenge the constitutionality of a law, is to break it and have the court hear your case. That is how in part constitutional law is affirmed. Under the circumstances, the circumstances of all constitutional challenge, the mayor of San Francisco, is proceeding the only way he can.

So the fact that the Mayor is breaking the law is at this point a non sequitur, when it comes to the morality of his actions.

Sparky::
Actually, there is another way to challenge the law...It's called bring a suit. He could've easily filed a lawsuit against the State, citing the reasons he thinks the law is unconstitutional. Your example of breaking the law to change it doesn't sound right to me.

Going by that example...A bank robber could rob a bank, claiming that the law against robbing banks is unconstitution. Not that he'd win, mind you. But if the mayor could get away with it, surely he could?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the Mayor that people should marry whomever they wish, and be afforded equal rights as straight married couples...but breaking the law is not the way to go about doing it.

Quote

My impression was that LORD of the SWORD, was commenting on the Mayor saying one thing and doing the opposite, which I have always been taught was a moral failing.

I was saying exactly that.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#57 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 09:38 PM

MuseZack, on Feb 25 2004, 07:24 PM, said:

Of all the arguments against gay marriage, this has to be one of the most absurd.  If marriage was strictly about biological reproduction, it would be restricted to fertile couples of childbearing age, with a requirement that the couple start pumping out kids or have the state annul the marriage.
Not really, you're just thinking too modern.  People generally would not get married at 60 years old... heck they might not even live until 60 years old when the concept of marriage was concieved.  Now, of course, people do marry that late, and they do get those benefits.  Maybe they shouldn't, on a civil level at least.

Note, this was devised to give the society some ability to ensure that couples that *could* produce children were properly induced to stay together and care for any offspring.  Now, *could* doesn't always mean *will*, but in the past, the distinction was difficult, if not impossible to make.  Fertility testing simply didn't exist in the scientific sense and anyone with any sense back then knew it.  Further, it was significantly less socially acceptable to not produce offspring, which makes perfect sense given the competitive need for species to reproduce.

So, it's not to induce the couples to pump out children, it's to ensure that any children that do get produced are brought into a stable home situation.  At least insofar as law, custom and society could provide.  There is no inherent state interest for mere non-reproductive companionship.  If there were, we would be able to "marry" our best friends, we wouldn't even need to be "gay".  

Quote

Similarly, in the Cheyenne tribe,

Not to be flip, but as far as I can tell, Cheyenne custom is not exactly the forefront of influences on American culture or legal custom.  So, I guess that's great... for them.

Further, the existence or need for a "third sex" in this case appears to is simply be a matter of dealing with overly rigid sex roles.  As far as I can tell, the whole need for this is when there isn't enough women to do the "woman's work", and no one who is a male will do "women's work" without being un-male.  It's interesting, but not really a statement on marriage per se, just a matter of cultural convenience while they work out their gender politics.

I'll be the last person to say that, worldwide, all marriage is created equal, merely that the system we have had handed down to us is so and so.  Obviously, polygamy is part of other cultures, and while I don't think that's optimal, in their countries, that's fine for them.  They have both the traditions as well as the legal and cultural experience behind that.  Putting polygamy in place in the US, however, would be a nightmare, and not just because of the uproar from various groups about it.  You'd pretty much have to rethink a lot of family law, for one thing.  

In this country, I think that in keeping with Western tradition, we have developed a particular civil institution of marriage, and that while we could just legislate redefinitions, those same redefinitions don't change what already exists in terms of law, and the assumptions that are made in those laws based on a general acceptance of the previous definition.  In short, you can redefine marriage to include gays, but then it's not marriage.  

I don't think that gay marriage will be the end of the world, but it will just be one step further towards diluting the institution to a point where it's meaningless except as a means by which people can accrue benefits to themselves or feel included.  That may not kill anyone, but I'm certainly not going to support the reduction of a useful institution to something less so.
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

#58 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 09:47 PM

Also add in the infant mortality rates till the 20th Century.

#59 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 09:52 PM

LORD of the SWORD, on Feb 25 2004, 12:15 PM, said:

I do find it highly ironic that the Mayor of SF says he thinks Bush should keep his hands off the Constitution...However, this same Mayor has no qualms about breaking State law and violating his own State's Constitution.
You need to get your facts straight. California's state consitution prohibits discrimination; the statute that was passed on the ballot is likely in violation of the state consitution; and the whole objective is to force the courts to consider whether or not that is the case.
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

#60 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 25 February 2004 - 09:55 PM

California's constitution prohibits discrimination *based on* certain things (among which sexual orientation is not, ftr, listed).

That said, Bush is trying to write bias back into the US Constitution.  To compare that to Newsome's refusal to follow a law that PROMOTES discrimination is just plain nonsense.

Lil
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Bush, Same sex marriage, ban

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users