And now there’s the stories that some people are lobbying for a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.
Putting aside that, as a general rule, amendments best serve the commonweal when they *expand* the rights of the people rather than restrict them, wouldn’t such an amendment put the final lie to the notion that we have separation of church and state in this country? After all, marriage, that bwessed awangement, that dweam wiffin a dweam, is a religious ceremony. An amendment that attempts to define what marriage is (a union between male and female only) is, by definition, an amendment that is curtailing religious freedom.
I mean, once the precedent is set, why stop there? Why not introduce an amendment that says, “Marriage is a union between male and female that will only be recognized by the government if it’s done as a sacrament from our lord, Jesus Christ.” Is it likely? No. But once the government is allowed to dictate the specifics of the religious ceremony in any aspect, they can dictate it in every aspect.
PAD
• 
Wolfknight asks:
Removing God from the equation, as many non-theists, atheists, and agnostics love to do, can anyone offer a valid reason why natural selection would allow such a thing as homosexuality to occur?
Quibble the First: “allow” implies that natural selection has motives. To do so is not particularly “removing God from the equation”.
Rephrasing the question as “how has homosexuality persisted over the eons given its obvious reproductive disadvantage?” … that’s a really, really good question. If it’s like most traits that bring obvious disadvantages, my guess is that there’s some subtle advantage the genetic links also bring that we haven’t sussed out yet. If anyone’s found out what that advantage is, I’ve yet to hear of it.
Example: the gene that causes cystic fibrosis is recessive. If you have one copy, it gives you increased resistance to cholera; if you have both, the condition is seriously life-threatening to say the least.
Please note that I’m not trying to equate homosexuality to an illness here — just saying that from an evolutionary standpoint, many genes can express themselves in ways that are both positive and negative from a fitness standpoint.
How does homosexuality further a species? How is homosexuality anything other than an evolutionary dead-end?
If it were solely an evolutionary dead end, it would have been bred out of most animals a long time ago. It hasn’t; thus, from a biological perspective, it’s obviously more.
I’m not asking to offend anyone, or start trouble, but let’s get this down to brass tacks.
Let’s say that married people are afforded some privileges and courtesies simply because they are married, and that marriage is defined as heterosexual couples (which seems to be the sticking issue).
Since it is accepted, that for the most part, the purpose of marriage, indeed sex in general, (not counting in obscure Greek religions) is reproduction, what is the benefit of homosexual “marriages”, and why should those seeking them be considered “married”?
I will say yet again: using reproduction as your sole or primary criterion automatically rules out people rendered sterile by injury or illness and post-menopausal women. If a 71-year-old widow falls in love and wants to get married a second time, by your argument she should be denied said privilege because reproduction will not be an option.
Why are you willing, from a purely social perspective, to give her the option and not a same-sex couple?
The answer is almost always, “I want the same rights”.
You have lost no rights at all. Married couples are not guaranteed the “rights” that homosexual couples talk about.
No where in the US Constitution are married people guaranteed estates, possession of holdings, visitation of the sick, or any of the other “rights” being sought.
Now that’s just specious reasoning. Sure, it’s not in the Constitution — but it’s sure as hëll in case law and statutes. Are you really going to argue that married couples do not have legal rights homosexual couples lack?
Now, if you’re saying “it’s not in the Constitution, so why is that what we’re trying to amend?”, I agree with you. I think amending the big C either way on this issue is fairly questionable, as it shouldn’t rise to that level.
As for how “natural” homosexuality is, or how much it is not a choice, I again suggest you look at the human form.
We don’t have gills either. Yet we scuba dive, and no one’s discriminated against for it.
Men and women are designed a certain way.
“Designed”. Quibble the Second: to say “designed” implies a designer. If you’re leaving God out of the equation, that’s not a valid statement.
(And others have already pointed out to you that humans are the only animal to use the missionary position: millions of years of sexual reproduction went on just fine without it being face-to-face.)
For one man to have sex with another, the design is ignored. For men, it involves facing AWAY from your “lover” at the moment of greatest intimacy.
Quibble the Third: putting “lover” in quotation marks creates the impression that they can’t really be lovers, but must somehow be feigning it or having aims on a station they’re not rightly entitled to. It’s stacking the debate, and inappropriately so.
Quibble the Fourth: I find it interesting that you only mention men in the above paragraph. Are two women okay?
What is the benefit?
“Of what use is a newborn baby?” — Michael Faraday
With all due respect … exactly why is it your business what tangible “benefit” they get out of it? I’m assuming the sort of benefits you get out of your relationship with your spouse/significant other are things like love, companionship, and intimaacy. If they find their sexual activity appropriately intimate and loving, what puts you in a position to say otherwise?
I am told to be more tolerant, and accept these things as “normal”.
Why is my opinion being ignored, or labeled as “phobic”?
It’s not being ignored. It’s also not being labeled phobic (at least by me) until and unless you decide that your particular opinions need to be elevated by law over everyone else’s.
You are now, I suspect, about to say “but homosexuals are trying to codify their opinions into law!” (I don’t think that’s a straw man argument, as you’ve made it before.) I partially agree, but would point out an asymmetry.
Opinion One: “My way is equally correct and should be permitted.”
Opinion Two: “My way is the only correct one and other ways must be prohibited.”
Assuming that the two “ways” in question are not the same one (certainly true in this case), those two opinions are mutually exclusive. Only one of them can be accepted by society at a given time.
Faced with the choice between the two, I will opt for the one that helps the most while harming the least. Opinion One gives many people rights they did not formerly have — and the only harm is to some people’s sense of what is right and proper for other people to be doing.
With all due respect … that latter is not my problem. It is yours, and it will remain such.
Where is the tolerance for what I think, feel or believe?
It’s there. It ends, however, the moment those thoughts, feelings and beliefs attempt to make society conform to them and restrict others’ rights in the process.
I’m sorry you feel differently.
TWL
Not to gross anyone out here,(that whole “ick” factor, you know) BUT, when two men make love, it doesn’t mean that they have to look away from each other.
And YES, I speak from experience on that one.
Tim,
Sorry about the confusion.
The explaination of Mother Theresa is Christ. Ghandi would be the hard one to explain, though maybe works-based religion would cover him… dunno.
Heck, our goverment lost it’s claim to separation of church and state when it sent the army to stop the building of the Salt Lake Temple in 187-something. They further tarnished it by denying Utah admission to the union until the LDS leaders agreed to cease the practice of polygamy, something which they felt had been commanded of them by God. That the goverment continues to uphold this persecution can be seen in the questions posed to hopeful entrants to “our great land.” They are actually asked, point blank, if they intend to engage in polygamy. As long as all parties are aware and agree that they are entering into a polygamous marriage, why should the government care? Why is it wrong to marry several women in a situation where you care for them and their children, but okay to marry, divorce and remarry and leave a chain of broken homes and abandoned kids behind you? Also, there are several cultures in the world where polygamy is the preferred style of marriage. Who are we to force these people to change just because they come to America? Basically, the governemnt has no business controlling the bounds of marriage. Leave it to the people and their churches. Keep Uncle Sam’s mitts out of it.
To say that something is “designed” does not imply a “designer” as a person, necessarily.
Natural selection plays a part in how something is “designed”.
Homosexual sex that involves any sort of penetration is possible facing your partner, I suppose, but I would imagine that an endowment larger than the accepted average would be required. Can’t really tell you, because I have never felt the need to place mine in anyone’s anus, nor will i attempt it for the sake of personal discovery.
Mr Lynch:
I am not seeking to impose anything on anyone. Rather, what you dismissed as a strawman argument (does anyone really know what that means?), is accurate.
Like it or not, this country is a representative democratic republic. The majority should not have to make concessions for the sake of a minority (with some very few exceptions. acceptance of another religion for example). Sine homosexuality is not, in fact, a religion, and homosexuals are not a “protected” minority (such as blacks, or Hispanics, or Muslims), in my opinion, no change in how laws apply to them need be made.
If married people seem to have additional “rights”, just chalk it up to marriage being a club you can’t join, say “life sucks”, and rather than making others accept what YOU wish to change, accept what already is, and move on already.
Why on earth would anyone want to say “life sucks” and move on? And why would you want them to?
Life doesn’t suck. And if two people decide their lives would be better if they’re married to each other, why should that affect you in the least?
Marriage isn’t a club. It’s a bond between two people — a private thing, which is publicaly recognized. But whatever the outside recognition, the crux of marriage is between the two people involved.
I can see why insurers and other such businesses wouldn’t want this — it means more money they may have to spend. (Although it also may mean more money they can make.) But anyone with “moral” objections to gay marriage — well, just don’t marry someone of your own gender. That’s as close as it comes to being any of your business. Gay marriage won’t “devalue” your own union, and to think it will is already lessening its value, since you’re defining it by outside influences, instead of the relationship itself.
Rob
Wolfknight writes:
To say that something is “designed” does not imply a “designer” as a person, necessarily.
Um … yeah, actually, it does. “To design” is a transitive verb. The existence of a designer is most definitely implied: that’s why the argument that “organ X is so complex that it couldn’t have arisen without someone making it” is called the grand design fallacy.
(And given that my wife is an evolutionary biologist, I’d really prefer you not try to tell me how natural selection works. I’m reasonably well educated on that score already, thankee kindly.)
I am not seeking to impose anything on anyone. Rather, what you dismissed as a strawman argument (does anyone really know what that means?), is accurate.
First of all, I didn’t dismiss anything as a straw man argument: I explicitly said that one argument was not a straw man.
As an aside: so far as I understand it (and thus the way I use it), a straw man argument goes something like this: X disagrees with Y, and explicitly attributes nonsense arguments to Y solely so that X can knock them down and appear to have won the argument.
I classified the one phrase I was putting in your mouth as “not a straw man” because I believed it to be an accurate representation of how you felt. You have now acknowledged that my assessment was correct. Thank you.
You then proceed to miss my point:
Like it or not, this country is a representative democratic republic. The majority should not have to make concessions for the sake of a minority (with some very few exceptions. acceptance of another religion for example).
Gotcha.
If “majority rules” is all that matters, that means slavery is fine — so long as we stick to only enslaving a minority category of people.
I don’t buy it. “Majority rules” means that 50.01% can impose its absolute will on the other 49.99% — and I honestly doubt that you believe that should be true in all cases.
Care to redefine your argument?
And on another note: if “acceptance of another religion” is a valid exception, doesn’t that mean that a faith which sanctions gay marriage should be allowed and given as much legal protection as those which don’t?
(And for that matter, Mormonism allows polygamy. Why isn’t that part of the law of the land?)
Sine homosexuality is not, in fact, a religion, and homosexuals are not a “protected” minority (such as blacks, or Hispanics, or Muslims), in my opinion, no change in how laws apply to them need be made.
So what makes black people a “protected” minority and not homosexuals? Please be specific.
(Incidentally, phrasing it as “protected” makes minorities sound like some poor little helpless endangered species. White man’s burden and all that.)
If married people seem to have additional “rights”, just chalk it up to marriage being a club you can’t join,
One: I assume the “you” in that is generic, given that I am in fact married.
Two: If marriage is “a club you can’t join”, then the government has no friggin’ business giving married couples special legal and financial favors.
I’ve tried to do this before, but I think it’s worth pointing out that marriage as an institution really has its feet in two different camps — the religious definition and the societal/legal one.
The “club you can’t join” argument works perfectly fine in the religious definition, I think — if church X wants to define its terms such that only certain groups of people can marry in its faith, that is church X’s business.
The country’s laws are a different matter entirely. Our legal system is not generally designed to create exclusive clubs — and, in my view, shouldn’t.
Could you please make it clear which side of the street you’re arguing?
say “life sucks”, and rather than making others accept what YOU wish to change, accept what already is, and move on already.
“Move on already” — seems I hear than an awful lot from conservatives in the face of injustice. “Oh, get over it.” “These things happen.”
The end of slavery happened, in part, because people refused to “move on already.” The civil rights and women’s rights movements happened in great part because of people who refused to “move on already”.
I will “move on already” when I see I’ve done all I possibly can. Not before.
This particular conversation, however, is probably close to an end, given that so far as I can tell about three of us are reading it. If you want to continue it, feel free to contact me in e-mail — or keep it here, but if so you might want to alert me in private so I know to look for it.
TWL
fbgfdhgfhxg