It is amusing that some people fulminate about so-called activist judges, and yet when judges in California legalize gay marriage by a strict reading of the Constitution, conservatives rush to get a referendum on the ballot for November that would restrict marriage to a man and a woman.
Food for thought: a mere forty one years ago, the marriage of Senator Obama’s parents would not have been recognized in sixteen states, because there were strict laws against a mixed race marriage…until some gosh-darned activist judges ruled that law unconstitutional.
When are those who are busy minding other peoples’ business going to tumble to the fact that any two people who wish to marry are the same race–the human race–whether they have different skin or like gender? There cannot be different grades of equality. Marriage, which once was something strictly arranged by parents, typically for financial gain, is in a constantly state of change and gay marriage is simply the next logical step in its evolution…presuming that critics of gay marriage believe in evolution.
PAD
• 
I think it’s interestnig that people always say they won’t buy Fallen Angel anymore too. It seems to me that if you have problems with gay people marrying, odd are there are enough things going on in Fallen Angel that you would also be uncomfortable with.
I mean she’s had a child out of marriage, she’s spoken of God in a less than reverent way and there are people of whose sexuality is a little different than the norm in it.
So if gay marriage or ‘open displays of affection’ cause you troubles, there are any number of things in Fallen Angel that will cause you discomfort.
And if just stating an opinion about gay marriage is something you can’t handle then you aren’t reading Fallen Angel.
But it is a heck of a good read for those of us that can handle opinions.
I always love being labeled ‘close minded’ for choosing not to support bigotry. I’m not gay. Whether or not gays are allowed to marry has absolutely no impact on my life. So if they want to, why not let them?
The people actively opposing gay marriage are fighting for a cause that benefits them in no way, and exists only to take happiness away from others. That’s pretty much a textbook definition of evil to me.
So. Marriage is a religious institution. Why aren’t these same people fighting to ban all non-Christian weddings? The sanctity of marriage is under fire. Why not outlaw divorce? Why aren’t they fighting to criminalize adultery? Why aren’t these people who complain when gay celebrties make wedding announcements reacting the same way to straight celebrities? I find all this VERY telling about their true priorities.
I got a kick out of David Rose saying “I’m not trying to blackmail Peter in any way.” I’m sure PAD let out a great sigh of relief, undoubtedly relieved that Mr. Rose was not going to unleash his massive blackmail campaign that would reduce PAD (and, I suppose, all who agree with him) into a quivering mass of protoplasm. Or something.
The gay marriage issue is about the *right* to get married, not about the comfort level of people. I have to right to eat kosher, or to chow down on hot dogs. I have the right to attend church on Sundays or skip it all year round. I have the right to listen to the latest New Kids on the Block song, but fortunately I have the right to skip it as well. I do *not* have the right to forbid people from eating kosher, from worshipping however they choose to, or from listening to what they want.
Gay marriage is about the capability for marriage for gay folks. There’s a big difference between feeling uncomfortbale with it and letting that discomfort determine that no one has that right. Freedom ain’t always pretty — but it’s worth it.
Who is harmed if gays marry? What is gained if we prohibit them from marrying. It would be one thing — though definitely monstrous — if the anti-gay marriage crowd were opposed to gay unions in general, but most make a point of saying they aren’t… so what’s the point? You’re OK with two people of the same sex living together and sharing a life but actually having it recognized as something sacred to them at least if anathama to you? I don’t think there are any words.
I mean, if stopping gay marriage resulted in lower gas prices, maybe we could talk, but really, this is just absurd.
Micha wrote: “The moral code that compels people to tolerate homosexuality regardless of how they feel about it is not external. It is not external to your society because it is derived from long standing traditions of privacy and autonomy in western society. And it is not external to humanity as a whole because it is justified on humanistic grounds.”
So, that would be choice A.
Then again, perhaps a lot of this felgercarb could have been avoided if the legislators had opted to go the route some had suggested: calling it a ‘civil union’ with all the rights, responsibilities and privileges of ‘marriage’. A rose by any other name might have helped avoid a lot of the backlash while still conferring all the formerly denied rights.
Rick, PAD, others – OK, so an old guy marrying a young kid is not OK because it should be between adults. Fine. Define ‘adults’. According to nature, ‘adult’ is when we hit puberty and can start to reproduce. That’s … what? At 12? 13? According to the law, it’s … uh, which law? It’s all over the map, from 14 to 21 depending on which country one is in. Heck, I was a late bloomer and I know I certainly was not a ‘mature adult’ at 21. Took a while past that. On the other paw, I’ve met people on the SF convention circuit who, at 12 or 13 were wiser and more mature seeming than people two or three times their age. Who are we to arbitrarily state they don’t know what’s good for them? Mostly we’d be right, of course. But should the exceptions be held back because of that?
Starwolf: Then again, perhaps a lot of this felgercarb could have been avoided if the legislators had opted to go the route some had suggested: calling it a ‘civil union’ with all the rights, responsibilities and privileges of ‘marriage’.
Actually, that’s basically what the situation was in California before the ruling, with sex-mixing couples getting marriage and same-sex couples getting “civil union”. Or are you calling for the dissolution of “marriage” as a legal term? There’s certainly a case to be made there.
Dave: Well, I wasn’t going to say anything else, but (as I predicted) this forum doesn’t allow dissenting opinions, so I guess I need to clarify my opinions.
In other words, you weren’t going to say anything as long as no disagreement was voiced. Is that you being unable to allow dissenting opinions?
However, broadcasting (flaunting) uncomfortable displays on the Internet, televison, and the front page of newspapers to the point where there is nothing else to look at and still get the day’s news is both inconsiderate and insensitive.Inconsiderate on whose part? You do realize that there is not some unified group putting out those things, that it’s a bunch of independent decision makers tailoring the material for their audience, right? Or are they supposed to conspire together to make certain there’s a special source that has all of the things you want and none of the things you don’t? Are you owed such a source? And if so, where does that entitlement arise from?
IIRC, the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination wasn’t ruled to extend to civil unions, but to marriage. Live by the marriage, die by its fair and equal extension.
Tim, the situation with your father and the 18-year-old probably never seemed right because the 18-year-old, while an adult, was just starting out as an adult. The 40-year-old, while at roughly the same age gap to your father, is well into adulthood, and therefore on the same “level” as him.
Partly that, I’m sure (along with the fact that the 18-year-old relationship happened when I was 16 — the “eww” factor was very large). A lot of it is just that my dad’s current girlfriend seems far more intelligent and interesting than the 18-year-old ever was.
David:
While I agree poeple should be allowed to live their lives in whatever manner makes them happy, I see no reason to be exposed to their choices.
Define “exposed”. If your co-worker has a picture of their spouse on their desk, isn’t that exposing you to their choice — heterosexual or otherwise?
What if you’re invited to a friend’s wedding? Does your comfort level change if it’s a same-sex wedding?
What if a friend is telling you a story and references something funny that their boyfriend or girlfriend just did the other day? Does it matter if it’s a same-sex or opposite-sex relationship?
All three of those constitute “exposing [you] to their choice” in some way. If a same-sex one is more uncomfortable to you, then it’s not the exposure that’s the issue — it’s that you’re less comfortable with same-sex relationships.
That is completely and totally your right — but it doesn’t mean that you have a constitutional right never to be uncomfortable.
Now, I’ll admit that seeing two guys making out on the subway is not high on the list of things I personally enjoy watching — but all that means is that I don’t watch. I don’t think I have such things “shoved in my face”, and I’m curious about why you do.
StarWolf:
Define ‘adults’. According to nature, ‘adult’ is when we hit puberty and can start to reproduce. That’s … what? At 12? 13? According to the law, it’s … uh, which law? It’s all over the map, from 14 to 21 depending on which country one is in. Heck, I was a late bloomer and I know I certainly was not a ‘mature adult’ at 21. Took a while past that. On the other paw, I’ve met people on the SF convention circuit who, at 12 or 13 were wiser and more mature seeming than people two or three times their age. Who are we to arbitrarily state they don’t know what’s good for them? Mostly we’d be right, of course. But should the exceptions be held back because of that?
Unfortunately, the only alternatives to “holding back the exceptions” are (a) saying no law binds anyone, or (b) requiring some sort of maturity test before two people are allowed to have sex or enter a relationship. I personally think either of those options does a lot more harm than good — (a) opens up the possibilities of many different sorts of abuse, and (b) is just intrusive to the point of absurdity.
(Now, passing a test to be allowed to reproduce … THAT one I could get behind. 🙂
TWL
This is an intellectually dishonest way of saying “WAAAAHHHH! My feelings are hurt! NOBODY AGREES WITH ME!”
I have nothing but contempt for this kind of dishonesty and emotional immaturity. In effect, it’s a tantrum, because your opinions are certainly allowed. If you don’t have the rhetorical tools or intellectual gumption to defend them properly, that’s YOUR problem, not PAD’s, not other posters, not anyone else’s.
Stand by your opinions and defend them well. If you CAN’T defend them, well….doesn’t that say something to you?
This talk of age of consent and how people are able to procreate at 13 made me once again think of the absurdity of invocking “natural law” or “procreation” to deny gay rights.
If biological design is divine design, then 13-year old girls could marry dirty old guys, because their biology allows them to procreate fine.
In fact, the way males are biologically designed to be able to impregnate a lot of females, “natural law” says men should have a lot of sexual partners without bothering with all this marriage nonsense.
I consider myself and conservative (probably would better describe myself as a libertarian) and I think this whole marriage thing is much ado about nothing. If we are anything we should be consistent, as such, we always harp about letting the states decide. Let each state decide if they want to allow gay marriage or not. End of discussion.
Now equal protection of the laws, to me that means that we all should be paying X% in taxes. How is it equal when someone pays 10% and someone else pays 30%. 30% does not equal 10%. How is that equal?
If you really want to go by “natural law,” why should it be more complicated than, “[Male/Female] A prefers to hook-up with [males/females]?” You need the preference for a gender to exist in a species, because if you eliminate a preference for a gender, the species dies. It seems pretty cut and dried. Why declare war on that which survival of the species depends on?
It isn’t equal. Someone who benefits disproportionately from the status quo should pay disproportionately more to preserve its infrastructure. It isn’t equal, because the stakes aren’t equal.
Then again, perhaps a lot of this felgercarb could have been avoided if the legislators had opted to go the route some had suggested: calling it a ‘civil union’ with all the rights, responsibilities and privileges of ‘marriage’.
The same argument was posited to support separate-but-equal, which was struck down decades ago as unconstitutional. If it’s intended to be the same in all but name, then it should be the same, period.
Rick, PAD, others – OK, so an old guy marrying a young kid is not OK because it should be between adults. Fine. Define ‘adults’.
I’m not sure why I’m bothering because, honestly, you seem much more interested in being obtuse than actually having a conversation, but: For the purposes of marriage, that’s already BEEN defined in this conversation: Eighteen years old, and younger in some states with parental consent. Try to track with this rather than become enamored with the sound of your own cybervoice: Fourteenth Amendment. Equal protection under the law. The California court is saying that the law as written must allow gays to take advantage of the same laws available to straight couples. That’s it. That’s all. Acknowledging that, and even formalizing it nationwide, will change no existing laws regarding state-mandated age of marriage. And throwing anti-gay marriage referendums into elections basically is asking the state population to formalize restrictions that stem from bias. Formalizing bias is A Bad Thing. I absolutely don’t give a crap if the majority of the population of a state wants it. I would hazard a guess that the majority of any number of states back in the 1950s and earlier wanted to make sure that blacks never married whites. Doesn’t make it right.
PAD
Posted by Rene at June 18, 2008 04:35 PM
“In fact, the way males are biologically designed to be able to impregnate a lot of females, “natural law” says men should have a lot of sexual partners without bothering with all this marriage nonsense”
Well, if you’ll permit me some **incredibly** broad brush strokes…
The male imperative says get out there and make as many babies with as many females as you can. The female imperative says get a big strong male to stay in the cave and protect/provide for you and your offspring…
Which, arguably, is why in all cultures, standing up and saying “we will commit to one another for the rest of our lives” is an incredibly big deal.
That does – to me – contain an implicit agreement to also commit to offspring from that union, so on some level it is hard to mentally seperate matrimony from parenthood.
Which is why people have so much huge emotional investment in (cue trumpets) The Sanctity of Marriage, whatever they each consider that to be, and why they react so viscerally if they feel that is being threatened.
Personally, I think same-sex couples should have the exact same rights as mixed marriages. (Don’t get me started on how in UK law there are actually advantages for same-sex over mixed..).
I also don’t think that any piece of paper is going to make any relationship more or less likely to survive in the long run, but I do know that marriage and being married is important to people…
Overall I guess I’d side with those above who have suggested making all unions civil unions and letting religions sort out the marriage definitions. It’s not something the State should decide on.
Cheers.
Many of the comments made about me today have been very hurtful. Taken in context, none of my comments were intended as hurtful toward anyone else, but several comments have been clearly intended as hurtful toward me.
I have apoligized to Peter for anything I said which he perceived as hurtful. He has accepted my apology and I am grateful.
I am severely depressed by the clearly hurtful statements made about me by other members of this forum. I have a bottle of pills in front of me and will be taking them after this mesage is posted.
Feel free to continue your attacks against me if you wish. I will not be here to read them.
Wow. Are you serious?
Man, call a friend, call someone, get help.
If it makes any difference, I apologize for any hurt any comment of mine have caused. Just don’t do this.
Wow. When you’re nailing yourself to that cross, how do you plan on getting the last nail in?
Then again, perhaps a lot of this felgercarb could have been avoided if the legislators had opted to go the route some had suggested: calling it a ‘civil union’ with all the rights, responsibilities and privileges of ‘marriage’.
According to my reading, the State of California already did this. They had “Civil Unions” that had all the legal status of a marriage set of for same-sex marriages. The State Supreme Court looked at the State’s Constitution and decided that this was a “Separate but Equal” situation. My reading on this subject says that California’s Constitution has an equal protection clause which is what the Court used. I believe it was not the 14th Amendment used for the ruling as PAD said. I’m sure the 14th could have been used, but I (baldly) speculate that State’s equal protect clause may have been a stronger guarantee of equal protection, so they had to conform to that one as well.
Now here’s the catch: California’s Constitution also guarantees marriage a fundamental right. That plus the equal protection guarantees left the hands of the Justices effectively tied, so they ruled that both heterosexual and same-sex marriages had to be called the same thing. They didn’t actually rule that gays had to be able to enter into “marriage”. They ruled that they had to be all “marriages” or all “civil unions” for everybody. The State could change its law so that all civil marriages are called “civil unions” and leave it up to various couples enter into a religious “marriage” at whatever church that would be willing to perform the ceremony. Currently, everybody in California’s getting “married” not “civil unionized.”
I am severely depressed by the clearly hurtful statements made about me by other members of this forum. I have a bottle of pills in front of me and will be taking them after this mesage is posted
Don’t do that! An argument on a blog thread with people who have never seen your face is not worth that. This is the internet and even nice people are more free with their comments when “talking” to someone who is effectively anonymous. That said, it follows that we nobodies are not worth internalizing any hurt that we might fling at you. If you find this place hurtful, please go somewhere that you enjoy. I don’t personally want to hurt anyone and I doubt that anyone here really wants to be hurtful. There are some “residents” who seem to have a pathological need to win every point of every argument, but I don’t think that even they mean to be hurtful.
Please tell me that you’re not going do what you said. After that, if you find this place so offensive, you will probably want to avoid it but I would like to hear that you are alright. I strongly suggest that you find someone that you can trust and talk about this before you do anything drastic.
What David Hunt said goes for me too, man.
We’ve all been there. Internet discussions often have left me angry and frustrated and depressed too, particularly when discussing issues I care about.
But in the end of the day, it’s a bunch of argumentative people you don’t even know, it’s just not worth it to beat yourself over it.
I really hope that you don’t do anything drastic.
Dave, the primer for stoicism is Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are. Marcus Aurelius wrote that we have no control over whether good or misfortune visits us, or its severity, and that virtue is our only shelter against misfortune. I’m not going to tell you what to do, only that you should act informed; you should know that when life denies you all privileges, you still have the option to rely on your reason and live justified in the face of your misfortune, as Max faced creatures we only have reason to believe could have torn him to pieces. The universe has trusted us to overcome our misfortunes, and we have the option to abstain from activities that may shame us when we face the Vikings, Samurai, and other wild things in whatever afterlife may await us.
Peter wrote: “I would hazard a guess that the majority of any number of states back in the 1950s and earlier wanted to make sure that blacks never married whites. Doesn’t make it right.”
Peter, how is right determined? I see so many comments on this thread making so many assummptions about the rightness of gay marriage, as if something is said often enough and loudly enough it them becomes true. Is right determined by majority? Then what if the majority changes its mind? or about other societies with different ideas? is right determined by power or force? is right determined by an unseen moral code? Shouldn’t there be an internal logical consistency in whatever method one uses to determine “right”? or does logic not matter?
I have not been convinced by the arguments that gay marriage is the same as bans on marriages between races simply because one is based on external characteristics that one has no control over while the other is base solely on a particular type of behavior. I do not think they correlate. If I can be shown to be wrong, I’ll concede. I definitely won’t be convinced by name calling.
Rudy –
Utilitarianism, I suppose. If an act will bring happiness and benefit to a lot of people without really harming anyone else, then it’s “right.”
I also mantain that sexual orientation is something you have no control over.
It’s determined by the adversarial process of debate.
“I have not been convinced by the arguments that gay marriage is the same as bans on marriages between races simply because one is based on external characteristics that one has no control over while the other is base solely on a particular type of behavior.”
I’m confused – are you saying that we don’t have control over our race but we do over our gender? Or are you say that having a relationship with a member of your own gender is a particular type of behavior, but having a relationship with a member of a different race is not?
Because the law as it existed did not prevent a homosexual from getting married. Plenty of homosexuals got married; they just married members of the opposite sex. So the law in both cases were discriminating against you based on the nature of who you chose to marry.
To say that that is equal freedom is like saying that we all have equal freedom of religion if we’re all free to worship Muhammed to the full extent of our hearts.
Dave (Rose) — assuming you’re serious about the bottle of pills, please go get help. Now. There’s no way an argument on somebody’s blog is worth it.
TWL
You say that like if you didn’t think about or will your own gender-preference, you wouldn’t have one at all. Is that your personal account of how you interact with your environment through your own gender role?
Peter DavID: 00Marriage, which once was something strictly arranged by parents, typically for financial gain, is in a constantly state of change and gay marriage is simply the next logical step in its evolution…presuming that critics of gay marriage believe in evolution.
Luigi Novi: Well, they shouldn’t, since “believing” in evolution is akin to “believing in the germ theory of infection”, heliocentricity, plate tectonics, Big Bang cosmology, and oxygen. It’s a scientific fact, and you either accept it, or you don’t. It’s not a matter of “belief”.
Jed: Peter, in fairness, you *could* take such a broad reading of that segment of the constitution that one could argue the rights of incestuous marriages.
Luigi Novi: So?
Albert Einstein and Franklin Roosevelt married their cousins. The skies didn’t exactly darken and crash to the Earth. And if you were referring only to siblings, again, so what? Don’t people raised as siblings completely lack any inclination toward romantic/sexual attraction? As Peter pointed out, is this really a problem that requires a law to address it?
Gays want to be able to marry. Siblings do not.
Even here, bigots are entitled to their opinions. Bigotry is wrong, but those who are bigoted still have the right to be so.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Very few things I’ve seen in life make me uncomfortable. I’ve seen bi-racial couples making out. I’ve seen women kissing. I’ve seen men kissing. Whatever makes them happy. Everybody should have the chance to be happy. I made a new friend early this year, then found out a month or so later that he has a husband. Cool for him.
I think all marriages should be abolished. It’d cut down on the number of divorces.
Well the bigots have found a new way to protest, a temper tantrum. I wonder if these counties can afford the lawsuits the lawyers are I’m sure drooling over.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=6210007
Well, they’ll just have to get used to it, because there is no turning the clock back now.
If 8 years with one of the most socially conservative presidents in the White House couldn’t stop gay rights from marching on, then nothing can’t.
Tim – “(Now, passing a test to be allowed to reproduce … THAT one I could get behind. :-)”
Agreed. In principle. But again one butts heads with the problems it would create. Tempting though it is, it’s another can of carnivorous worms best left untouched. We can but hope people make the right choice (I opted not to) but there are those who might argue that anyone deciding they probably wouldn’t be a good parent are already showing more wisdom than many people who do have kids and therefore are better qualified.
As a quick aside, several people here have wondered about how this debate would affect age of consent laws for marriage. Without getting into the determination of what constitutes the correct age of consent (mainly ‘cuz I don’t know how it’s determined), any time there’s a strict delineation of something people will always argue that it’s too srtict, too definite. Is it fair that a 21 year old can drink but a person who’s 20 years and 364 days old can’t? Why can I vote at 18 but not 17.99? However, if you don’t set a strict limit, the minimum age keeps getting bumped down until the law becomes meaningless (the age is X — unless you’re a day younger, or maybe a week younger than that, or a few weeks younger…) Sometimes closeness can be a mitigating factor (like the statutory rape case where there was a difference of a few weeks but the man was sent to prison for years), but there still needs to be a specific age for something to be legal — whether it’s marriage, intercourse, voting, or driving.
I’m sure there’s a certain amount of hubris involved in jumping into any discussion out of nowhere, so I’ll try not to embarrass myself. I am a longtime lurker and I probably wouldn’t have thrown my hat in at all, except for the fact that I think quite a number of posters, as have quite a number of Americans, news media outlets, and politicians, completely missed the point.
I remember a discussion I had with my Pop regarding gay marriage, in which I regarded the discussion from the opposite angle, being the ‘false idol’ clause of the Ten Commandments. That being, there is no legislation that can possibly tell a church who their pastor can join in wedlock; in fact my aunt and her girlfriend were married in a Congregationalist ceremony a few years ago. Therefore, there’s no legal way that “gay marriage” in the religious sense can possibly be illegal under the establishment clause of the Constitution.
Therefore, individuals who turn to the government to legislate the act of marriage in the civil sense are in effect infringing upon rights reserved for the Almighty, and thusly, religious and social conservatives in favor of the aforementioned amendment are ÐÃMNÊÐ TO THE FIRES OF HÊLL FOR ETERNITY.
Not only this, I continued, but also consider that the Founding Fathers’ intent in the Establishment Clause was not to protect the government from religion, but to protect religion from the government. They were looking to their past, not to the future, and they had endless examples in history of foreign potentates using threats, intimidation, and outright force to stamp their tyrannies with spiritual legitimacy. It particular, the Papacy suffered so poorly under Louis XIV that the Pope at the time secretly joined the Protestant League of Augsburg under King William. Even today, you have the Chinese government, for instance, insisting it had the right to choose the Panchen Lama. So every time, I reasoned, that people turn to the government to impose their religious views on others by the force of law, they are in fact establishing legal precedents for the government’s control over religious practice. Look into the Abyss, the Abyss looks into you.
Pop’s argument cut through all that like a hot knife through butter. Dad said, well sure son, but bear in mind that the entire concept of civil marriage derives from English common law, and was set up to ensure custodial rights for children and rights of inheritance. What’s really going on here is that right now, partners in a homosexual union have no rights regarding their would-be spouse’s offspring, nor in the inheritance of their estate; even with a will, it’s not always easy. There was even this one case in Oklahoma of a man with a male partner and a big ranch. But due to the fact that his will leaving the ranch to his partner didn’t have a second witness, the Oklahoma courts nullified it and gave everything to the man’s two worthless sons, who threw his partner out. Not to mention that despite their stated preferences for small government, states’ rights and family values, many social conservatives would rather toss children into a broken foster care system than allow them to stay with a parental figure they’ve known all their lives, simply because of their sexual orientation. This is of course called HYPOCRISY.
Therefore, for all the endless argument surrounding this issue, it is a civil matter and not a religious one, and to deny gay marriage is quite simply a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. Any laws infringing the rights of these Americans have now and have always been illegal, and that is that.
There is, quite simply, no argument beyond this. If one is objecting to homosexual marriage upon religious grounds, I would advise not attending a church that has homosexual weddings. Anyone who feels that this line of reasoning is insensitive to their feelings and their ‘dissenting opinion’ is being ‘quashed’ is holding a bad opinion in the first place!
‘Sides, it’s a free country.
As for incest, bëšŧìálìŧÿ, polyandry, polygamy and what-have-you, until they are no longer criminal acts there is no pending Constitutional debate regarding them. Another generation can fight that battle.
Lastly, someone said ‘natural law’. …. What the heck is natural law? Homosexuality is rampant in nature. Lesbianism helps female macaques build bonds of herd loyalty. As one example.
Anyway, loyal reader of Fallen Angel (I have every issue, even some variant covers, yet despite this I even buy the trades and the deluxe hardcover), been with PAD since Supergirl #1, wore a black armband the day they canceled Young Justice, etc. Thanks to the two or three of you who may have skimmed this!
I have a bottle of pills in front of me and will be taking them after this mesage is posted.
There are so many ways to respond to this, and quite frankly, I’m thinking of the less than polite ones right now.
As PAD pointed out, for such a volatile subject, this thread has been amazingly civil.
And then this comes out of left field…
“Utilitarianism, I suppose. If an act will bring happiness and benefit to a lot of people without really harming anyone else, then it’s “right.”
So, July 1st for International Public Mášŧûrbáŧìøņ Day? Who’s going to set up the website?
Personally, I figure what’s ‘right’ is defined within the context of a culture, by concensus, and it’s subsequently subject to change or revision without much in the way of prior notice.
There have been cultures which were very laid back about sexual mores but allowed slavery, the pendulum do keep on swinging and it ain’t likely to stop doing so and point to one universal truth of rightness any time soon…
“You speak of truth. Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths, are mine the same as yours”
Cheers.
> If it’s intended to be the same in all but name, then it should be the same, period.
The ‘seperate-but-equal’ went down in well deserved flames because, though they claimed it was ‘equal’ in principle, in practice it certainly wasn’t. Big difference.
>…you seem much more interested in being obtuse than actually having a conversation,
It’s not my intention.
> but: For the purposes of marriage, that’s already BEEN defined in this conversation:
Yes. But, as I implied, many places don’t necessarily agree with that. As someone else wrote here, what makes us ‘right’ and them ‘wrong’? Note: if I really felt we [North American society] were wrong, I’d probably relocate. This doesn’t mean that it isn’t a good idea to keep questioning … just in case. Isn’t this how change often occurs? Or, in some cases, bad change is kept from occurring?
> rather than become enamored with the sound of your own cybervoice:
Nice …
> Fourteenth Amendment. Equal protection under the law.
Again, equal benefits, applied equally. I don’t know about down where you are, but up here that was the big thing that was being fought for. The word ‘marriage’ shouldn’t have even entered into it.
>Acknowledging that, and even formalizing it nationwide, will change no existing laws regarding state-mandated age of marriage.
In itself, of course not.
> Formalizing bias is A Bad Thing.
We do it all the time. It’s called “laws”. Everything from societal biases against murder to which side of the road we drive on. Where it becomes a bad thing is when it deliberately hurts a given group/individual for no good reason. The trouble lies in resolving such biases in a way which doesn’t wind up swinging the other way. Look at the nonsense where shop employees are told not to wish people “Merry Christmas” because it might offend non-Christians. Excuse me?! That’s pushing things to a ridiculous extent. And this is a big part of my point: once you have people go down a certain route, they’ll keep going as far as they can until someone decides “Hey, wait, this is getting ridiculous.” So it’s best to look at just how far things could go if left unchecked.
> I absolutely don’t give a crap if the majority of the population of a state wants it.
I’m not putting words into your mouth, I know this isn’t what you’re saying, but if we’re to ignore the wishes of the majority at will, why not just give up on Democracy and go with a benign dictatorship? Yes, this is why we have a system of ‘checks and balances’. Worked real well with Bush, didn’t it?
> I would hazard a guess that the majority of any number of states back in the 1950s and earlier wanted to make sure that blacks never married whites. Doesn’t make it right.
The ‘tyranny of the majority’, yes. Which brings us to the question of ‘who decides?’ Maybe we should elect the courts to run things? Increasingly, it appears that’s what’s happening as they force politicians’ hands – especially up here. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing.
“Look at the nonsense where shop employees are told not to wish people “Merry Christmas” because it might offend non-Christians. Excuse me?! That’s pushing things to a ridiculous extent.”
Because it’s, y’know, ridiculous to not want to offend non-Christians.
“The ‘seperate-but-equal’ went down in well deserved flames because, though they claimed it was ‘equal’ in principle, in practice it certainly wasn’t. Big difference.”
No, not a big difference. The government would be according a different level of legitimacy by linking one group to the socially-accepted term of “marriage” and limiting this other group to a term viewed as second class. If we decided only white people could legally be called “doctors” and black people would be limited to “black medical guy thingy”, it would have much the same effect. On top of that, the use of the term effects how the relationship is accepted in other jurisdictions, which have laws for recognizing marriages from elsewhere but not the specific pseudo-non-marriage thingy.
Nat – “Because it’s, y’know, ridiculous to not want to offend non-Christians.”
So instead offend Christians. Yeah, big improvement.
“No, not a big difference… ‘black medical guy thingy’, it would have much the same effect.”
Only if, as in the case of “equal-but-separate”, it results in the people involved losing out on benefits or getting second-class treatment. The whole point of the proposed ‘civil union’ was to give exactly the same treatment, under another name.
How exactly is saying “Happy Holidays” offending Christians? Just because it doesn’t mention your holiday specifically? If so, then I’d submit that you’re way too easily offended.
It’s not like they’re saying “have a good Chanukah but a really crappy Christmas, you swine.”
TWL
I nitpick and harp on points. Absolutely. But, given what I see almost every day, I figure someone has to.
Case in point from this morning:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080619.wcurfew19/BNStory/lifeFamily/home
Right on the heels of Parliament being in the last stages of passing an anti-spanking law, we’ve got a kid successfully suing a parent to avoid being grounded.
Excuse me? If kind language and reasoning with kids worked all the time with all kids, jails and juvie halls wouldn’t be as full as they are. What’s left? Calling in the cops because the kid stays out past curfew? Withholding allowances probably won’t work, they’d likely sue on the grounds of economic hardship. And very possibly win. I wouldn’t bet on the contrary. Heinlein was right: these are the Crazy Years.
I apologize is people find some of my comments seemingly silly or nonsensical, but I would say reality is a lot worse. And someone needs to point it out.
Agreed. In principle. But again one butts heads with the problems it would create. Tempting though it is, it’s another can of carnivorous worms best left untouched.
Except the can wasn’t opened by advocates of equal marriage. It was opened by those who contend that the notion that marriage is designed for procreation and therefore should be forbidden to gays. In making that assertion, they put forward the notion that the two are inextricably linked and therefore one is contingent upon the other.
Formalizing bias is A Bad Thing.
We do it all the time. It’s called “laws”. Everything from societal biases against murder to which side of the road we drive on. Where it becomes a bad thing is when it deliberately hurts a given group/individual for no good reason.
Right here is the whole “obtuse” thing I was bringing up. Inherent in the word “bias” is that it is of an unreasoning nature. That’s what distinguishes it from, say, “preference.” “Laws,” at least in theory, are supposed to be rooted in benefiting the commonweal. What they are NOT supposed to be doing is curtailing the rights of others arbitrarily. To conflate “bias” and “laws” is just ridiculous.
The trouble lies in resolving such biases in a way which doesn’t wind up swinging the other way. Look at the nonsense where shop employees are told not to wish people “Merry Christmas” because it might offend non-Christians. Excuse me?! That’s pushing things to a ridiculous extent. And this is a big part of my point: once you have people go down a certain route, they’ll keep going as far as they can until someone decides “Hey, wait, this is getting ridiculous.” So it’s best to look at just how far things could go if left unchecked.
No, it’s not. It’s a logical fallacy called “reducto ad absurdum.” You take a logical, reasonable argument to a ridiculous extreme, act as if the ridiculous extreme has validity, and then assert that it invalidates the core concept. Case in point: Acknowledging that gay marriages have equal force under the 14th amendment will lead to old men marrying 12 year old girls or sheep, and therefore violating 14th amendment protections for gays is okay. Except it won’t and it’s not.
I absolutely don’t give a crap if the majority of the population of a state wants it.
I’m not putting words into your mouth, I know this isn’t what you’re saying, but if we’re to ignore the wishes of the majority at will, why not just give up on Democracy and go with a benign dictatorship?
If you know that’s not what I’m saying, then why even bring it up? I’m simply saying that the majority of people believing something doesn’t automatically give it validity. Once upon a time, the majority of people believed the sun moved around the earth, the earth was flat, slavery was okay, women were property, and gays shouldn’t marry.
PAD
Nat wrote:”I’m confused – are you saying that we don’t have control over our race but we do over our gender? Or are you say that having a relationship with a member of your own gender is a particular type of behavior, but having a relationship with a member of a different race is not?”
What I do not understand is why a behavior is being considered equivalent to a particular phenotype. A man who engages in heterosexual behavior and a man who engages in homosexual behavior are both still males. It is their behavior that we are focusing on to differentiate them. I do not deny the gender of the homosexual. In the cases where marriage between people of different races was forbidden it seems to me what was evil about this situation was that
some races were considered less than or other than human. I do not think anyone has denied the humaness of the homosexual. The discrimantion against homsexual marriage seems to me to be based on the taboo that homosexual behavior was less than desirable. I think the argument from design is the easiest to grasp. Simply put the fact that the anatomy of males and females interact in a lock and key fasion implies strongly they are natures’s design. There are other arguments, but this requires the least amount of philosophical rigor. I appreciate participating in this dicsussion, and hope everyone has a nice weekend.
On the evolution of marriage. (Yes, I believe in evolution. 😎 )
It was pointed out that we have evolved past the days of arranged marriages when parents got kids together to improve their financial/social standing.
And this was, of course, a bad thing.
How many people here have actually dealt with those in such unions? I’m betting not many.
I have. I’ll grant a half-dozen couples over the years isn’t a statistically significant sample, but I did note their success/failure rate was no worse than our divorce-prone, hormonally-driven ones. But they bad, us good?
Ah, but it’s about ‘freedom of choice’. Right. And how many here would just sit back and let their late teen age daughter – just past age of consent – gleefully get married to some known, drug-pushing Hëllš’ Angel member without doing everything they can to stop it?
As for the ‘financial/social standing thing, if this wasn’t so important in today’s ‘improved’ marriages, why are so many lawyers getting rich off complicated ‘pre-nuptial agreements’? Why are so many divorce settlements crowded with phrases such as “the lifestyle they have become accustomed to”?
I know, I’m missing the point. That back then it was the parents deciding and now it’s the kids. Only … I see people above stating that young adults aren’t necessarily experienced or mature enough to make key decisions for themselves. So, OK, they aren’t. But if parents, ostensibly more mature and experienced, aren’t allowed to do it either, who does?
“I think the argument from design is the easiest to grasp. Simply put the fact that the anatomy of males and females interact in a lock and key fasion implies strongly they are natures’s design.”
But nature has designed males to impregnate a lot of females. Having a man coupled to only one single woman for life is then aberrant.
Nature also has designed males to be physically stronger than females. If laws should reflect nature’s design, then obviously the law should recognize males’ commanding position.
Following this line of thought, the only ones that get it “right” are the Muslims. They have a custom of the man marrying multiple women, of the male dominating society, and also are pretty harsh with homosexuals. They’re the correct society then, because they’re more in tune with nature’s design.
But correct as they may be, I still prefer not living there.
The problem here is one of human labeling…we like to have neat labels to which we can attach a series of ideas and ideals, and then let that label define those concepts. The problem with that is over time, the label gathers too much to it, and thus loses its ability to function as an adequate label, because people interpret it to mean different, sometimes conflicting things.
Marriage is a prime example of this. It’s a term that encompases spiritual, religious, cultural, societal, and legal concepts. People want one label, but the goals and motivations of those different realms do not easily allow one label to fit. People that just want the legal bundle of rights that come with it, along with the societal recognition of a life-long partner, don’t necessarily care about the spiritual, religious, or cultural implications. But people that DO care about such things don’t want to share the label with those that might violate the precepts of those realms.
Which has yet to be demonstrated with gay marriage.
Why is it ridiculous for the indifference to a non-Christian’s faith to kill the buzz of an impulse buy? Why does a Jew, for example, owe it to some clerk who wishes him a Merry Christmas to buy from him? Maybe the problem isn’t that non-Christian don’t know to move out of the paths of the walking Christians, but that stores sell too much šhìŧ.
If all you have against an argument is that it’s reductio ad absurdum, you haven’t invalidated its logical integrity. By the standards of debate as it’s known in western civilization, reductio ad absurdum beats the need to be right.
Posted by Peter David at June 19, 2008 07:41 AM
“I’m simply saying that the majority of people believing something doesn’t automatically give it validity. Once upon a time, the majority of people believed the sun moved around the earth, the earth was flat, slavery was okay, women were property, and gays shouldn’t marry”
Hmmm… OK, you’re technically correct vis a vis belief and the dictionary definition of validity.
You’re possibly fudging it ever so slightly if – note the ‘if’ word – you mean to imply that what the majority of people believe doesn’t give that belief a significant degree of weight and importance, especially in a democratic culture…
Playing the omnipresent West Wing card again, we’re back to Santos’ take on teaching intelligent design; that evolution can be taught as a science but that creationism and it’s associated variations are back to belief and faith.
I suspect that many aspects of this argument, on both sides, are always going to be based on what people believe, regardless of whatever scientific, pseudo-scientific or religious/philosophical influemces are shaping those beliefs.
It’s very difficult to change what someone believes unless you can produce an argument so incontravertible that they have to change.
Cheers.