Posted 17 days ago in 
Loading ...
In recent news there was a piece where some local vandals had spray painted graffiti over a sign containing the message, “Keep Religion out of Government.” Let me first say that in no way do I condone what someone did to that sign, nor do I appreciate the terminology that was used to denote homosexuals. With that said, let me address an underlying, and growing public mentality that needs addressed with vigor.
This sign was changed to say keep the homosexual out of government rather than keep religion out, and on one news cast this was termed a “hate crime” because it came against those with a lifestyle of homosexuality. Homosexuality is a belief system as well as a lifestyle choice, no different than any strictly observed religion choice. We both have our ideals, mindsets, and actions that reflect the position. The difference comes when you come against either of the two lifestyles.
If you come against those in religion, and specifically Christianity, we are expected to back down and take a silent back stage. If you disagree with the homosexual, you are considered intolerant and a perpetrator of hate crimes as was stated in the newscast. This double standard is not equitable for the Christian and must be dealt with. Discrimination of any race, color, gender or belief system is intolerant and against the laws of this land.
Furthermore, let’s examine the message itself. As a governmental official, if I cannot draw upon my belief system to lead in a way I feel is honorable, then from what position can I lead. Are homosexuals, atheists, environmentalists, conservatives, liberals or any other persuasion told they cannot govern out of the fundamentals of their belief system? If you have no basis for your platform you will be unstable and likely not to win an election in the first place.
What the people of this nation vote for are those with the same core values they most closely align themselves with. Therefore, if a Christian gets elected, he must,, out of duty to his electorate, govern like a Christian. This is the system our republic is based on.
If you want to keep Christians our out Government then defeat them through the electoral process rather than committing hate crimes with you signs!
Mike Macfarlane
Grand Junction
121 Responses to “Christians held to different standard regarding government”
Posted November 3rd, 2009 at 3:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Macfarlane seems to miss the point of the billboard in the first place.
No one is saying that an individual cannot have faith in the deity of their choice, or act on that faith as an individual. No one is attacking Christianity and expecting Christians to take a silent back stage.
What is being done is asking Christians to respect the rights of others who do not share their beliefs and recognize that those beliefs do not belong in our governmental process. That does not mean that an elected official cannot base his actions on his beliefs, but he cannot impose those beliefs on others while “on the clock” as a representative of the government.
Posted November 3rd, 2009 at 5:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I can only wonder where was the uproar when the Right to Life billboard was vandelized 2 years ago, on North Avenue and 5th street. That was paid for by locals and replaced by locals. Was this also a hate crime since it went after the child in the photograph used for the billboard? Oh I forgot, the right for children to be born is not protected in this country!
Posted November 3rd, 2009 at 6:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GEP: “I can only wonder where was the uproar when the Right to Life billboard was vandelized 2 years ago, on North Avenue and 5th street.”
As I recall, that was mentioned and discussed also. That was wrong and this is wrong. Is the poster asking that his/her sensibilities are more important than that of any other and thereby should be given more and louder whining rights?
Posted November 3rd, 2009 at 6:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
McFarlane: “Therefore, if a Christian gets elected, he must,, out of duty to his electorate, govern like a Christian.”
Therein lies the problem for some individuals, as they don’t recognize that by taking such a position, they are really advocating for the tyranny of a majority. A person who is elected to office is to govern as a citizen, not as a cats paw of any religion, sex, sexual orientation, latino, black, etc.
Individuals such as Mr. McFarlane would be the first to yell and scream about tyranny if they were not in a majority, and they would be right just as they are wrong now.
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 11:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says, “What is being done is asking Christians to respect the rights of others who do not share their beliefs and recognize that those beliefs do not belong in our governmental process. That does not mean that an elected official cannot base his actions on his beliefs, but he cannot impose those beliefs on others while “on the clock” as a representative of the government.”
Is there really a difference between someone voting a certain way, “basing his actions on beliefs”, and “imposing those beliefs” by voting a certain way?
Of course - the difference is only if those beliefs and values are conservative. Liberals never have a problem with Christians like Obama, Kennedy, Pelosi, Rev. Wright, Fr. Flager “imposing their beliefs” abortions, gay marriage, “social justice”, feminist “morality”, “environmental justice”, “economic justice”, affirmative action, etc. etc. on the whole country. But let a Christian speak out with a different view about any of those issues and suddenly they’re IMPOSING their beliefs and values on everyone else.
RL exposes the hypocrisy phenomenon quite well, “Individuals such as Mr. McFarlane would be the first to yell and scream about tyranny if they were not in a majority, and they would be right just as they are wrong now.”
/sarcasm ahead/
So screaming about tyranny is “right” as long as someone represents a minority (”not in the majority”). But since religious folks are currently in the majority, they are “wrong”. Right. How convenient for non-religious extremism.
/end sarcasm/
The reality in our Republic is that ALL elected officials express their values and beliefs, and govern according to their values and belief systems, whether they be religiously grounded or secular. It’s just all too easy for secular liberals to “pull the religion card” and cry that someone is “imposing” upon them when those beliefs and values fail to IMPOSE their own liberal values and belief systems.
The bottom line is that as long as religion exists, there will always be religious views expressed as personal moral views by government officials. Just because the speaker happens to be Christian or Jewish or Muslim, doesn’t mean they are promoting a religious theocracy. The Constitution happens to guarantee BOTH freedom of religious expression AND freedom from government actually establishing a religion.
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 12:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “The bottom line is that as long as religion exists, there will always be religious views expressed as personal moral views by government officials.”
The poster misses the gist of the argument which I made and that is that the citizen, each and every one, including public officials, must take great care that when they cast a vote, that it be restricted to a secular issue and based upon secular standards, and not based upon personal religious beliefs or convictions. Few, I suspect, stop to consider the necessity of doing so.
For instance, I would submit that many organized religions should lose their tax-exempt status. Not because of their relgion or religious beliefs, but because they are directly involved in politics. Two of the greatest offenders in that regard are the Catholic Church and the Church of Latter Day Saints, who have taken to telling their adherents how to vote on issues. That affects not only their congregants, but others who do not believe subscribe to their religious beliefs. It may come as a shock to many, but many of those individuals in pulpits are quite frequently very uneducated persons. Everything they have studied has been biased or interpreted in light of their ideology or faith. As a consequence, and most of them having lived a sheltered existence, they are quite divorced from the reality of the world.
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 12:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Is there really a difference between someone voting a certain way, “basing his actions on beliefs”, and “imposing those beliefs” by voting a certain way?”
It depends on what is being voted on. And there are many other ways for an elected official to “impose their beliefs” besides voting.
“Of course - the difference is only if those beliefs and values are conservative. Liberals never have a problem with Christians like Obama, Kennedy, Pelosi, Rev. Wright, Fr. Flager “imposing their beliefs” abortions, gay marriage, “social justice”, feminist “morality”, “environmental justice”, “economic justice”, affirmative action, etc. etc. on the whole country.”
Since each person should have the right to choose for themselves whether they wish to participate in those actions, you are correct.
“But let a Christian speak out with a different view about any of those issues and suddenly they’re IMPOSING their beliefs and values on everyone else.”
When they say they’re right by fiat, yes.
“RL exposes the hypocrisy phenomenon quite well, “Individuals such as Mr. McFarlane would be the first to yell and scream about tyranny if they were not in a majority, and they would be right just as they are wrong now.”
/sarcasm ahead/
So screaming about tyranny is “right” as long as someone represents a minority (”not in the majority”). But since religious folks are currently in the majority, they are “wrong”. Right. How convenient for non-religious extremism.
/end sarcasm/”
You must practice missing the point. Seriously.
What RL said was that they were wrong for thinking that being the majority makes them right and minorities wrong simply for being in the minority.
“The reality in our Republic is that ALL elected officials express their values and beliefs, and govern according to their values and belief systems, whether they be religiously grounded or secular. It’s just all too easy for secular liberals to “pull the religion card” and cry that someone is “imposing” upon them when those beliefs and values fail to IMPOSE their own liberal values and belief systems.”
When a “secular liberal” or even someone of a different faith has to sit through a sectarian prayer before conducting city or county business, that is imposing beliefs on others. When a woman’s right to choose what happens to her own body is taken away simply because someone’s religion says so, that is imposing beliefs on others. When Christians demand the right to impose their beliefs just because they are the majority and the monority should “sit down and shut up”, that is imposing beliefs on others.
Not praying at a government meeting imposes nothing on anyone. Allwing a woman to choose what is right for her and her body imposes nothing on anyone. Allowing minority groups to defend their Constitutional rights imposes nothing on anyone, except those who think that they have a right to something that they don’t.
“The bottom line is that as long as religion exists, there will always be religious views expressed as personal moral views by government officials.”
Yes. Which is why we have the First Amendment and a judicial system to make sure they don’t swing too far.
“ust because the speaker happens to be Christian or Jewish or Muslim, doesn’t mean they are promoting a religious theocracy. The Constitution happens to guarantee BOTH freedom of religious expression AND freedom from government actually establishing a religion.”
For individual citizens, yes. But not for the government itself, or government officials acting in their official capacities.
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 1:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well it reads as if there is plenty of immaturity to go around, One side defaces the other side thinking they are doing each others side a service when they are not. Christian or not, left or right, whomever defaces the rights of another defaces the whole of their assumed group of allegiance.
I am a Christian, I didn’t deface the billboard I’ve never even seen it, yet because I am a Christian I have been grouped in together with those who did the damage. Now where is the love in that?
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 1:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t see anyone claiming that all Christians are responsible for the billboard vandalism, but think about it for a minute. What group is responsible for the lions share of the activism against gays and lesbians?
Fundementalist Christians. Not all Christians, but that sub-sect of Christianity that cannot accept any possibility that their holy book is wrong on any count. Whoever did the vandalism is, statistically, most likely a Fred Phelps wannabe. If you aren’t one of those then I don’t think anyone is accusing you of the deed.
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 1:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL says, “For instance, I would submit that many organized religions should lose their tax-exempt status. Not because of their relgion or religious beliefs, but because they are directly involved in politics. Two of the greatest offenders in that regard are the Catholic Church and the Church of Latter Day Saints, who have taken to telling their adherents how to vote on issues.”
But, of course, that isn’t a problem for the Left when liberal churches and preachers do the SAME or when a liberal politicians use religion and churches to advance a liberal agenda:
According to Barack Obama, THE most liberal President ever elected:
“Nowhere is the promise of organizing more apparent than in the traditional black churches. Possessing tremendous financial resources, membership and — most importantly — values and biblical traditions that call for empowerment and liberation, the black church is clearly a slumbering giant in the political and economic landscape of cities like Chicago. A fierce independence among black pastors and a preference for more traditional approaches to social involvement (supporting candidates for office, providing shelters for the homeless) have prevented the black church from bringing its full weight to bear on the political, social and economic arenas of the city.”
and
“Over the past few years, however, more and more young and forward-thinking pastors have begun to look at community organizations such as the Developing Communities Project in the far south side and GREAT in the Grand Boulevard area as a powerful tool for living the social gospel, one which can educate and empower entire congregations and not just serve as a platform for a few prophetic leaders. Should a mere 50 prominent black churches, out of the thousands that exist in cities like Chicago, decide to collaborate with a trained organizing staff, enormous positive changes could be wrought in the education, housing, employment and spirit of inner-city black communities, changes that would send powerful ripples throughout the city.”
http://www.edwoj.com/Alinsky/AlinskyObamaChapter1990.htm
How many liberal Democrats complained when Obama’s openly racist pastor (of 20 years) openly campaigned for Obama from the pulpit and promoted the conspiracy belief that the government invented to AIDS virus as a tool for black genocide?
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 1:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I wonder if JMH realizes that she just made RLaitres’ point for him? He never said that only conservative churches should lose their tax-exempt status, he said all of them should, and JMH just helpfully supplied more reason to do so.
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 3:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH said: “Is there really a difference between someone voting a certain way, “basing his actions on beliefs”, and “imposing those beliefs” by voting a certain way?”
Scott says, “It depends on what is being voted on.”
Like what?
Scott says, “And there are many other ways for an elected official to “impose their beliefs” besides voting.”
Like what?
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 3:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH:
Well, gee. Let’s see.
How about voting on whether to make November “Veteran Appreciation Month” in the city of Grand Junction. Does that have anything to do with religious beliefs?
How about voting against same-sex marriage simply because your religion insists that it is wrong?
As for other actions that elected officials take, are you serious? How about sectarian prayer at government meetings, for a start.
Care to respond to the other points that were made? Such as the difference between individual rights and those of government representatives in their official capacities?
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 4:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH said: “Is there really a difference between someone voting a certain way, “basing his actions on beliefs”, and “imposing those beliefs” by voting a certain way?”
Scott says, “It depends on what is being voted on.”
and
“How about voting against same-sex marriage simply because your religion insists that it is wrong?”
How about voting against same-sex marriage simply because marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman.
What’s the difference?
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 5:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
According to tradition based on what?
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 5:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Let me elaborate on that a bit.
If someone had a non-religious reason for voting against same-sex marriage, that would be fine. I’m not aware of any, however, and I’ve yet to ask someone that question who actually had one. The tradition is religiously based, so that would not actually be a non-religious reason. Regardless, my question as stated was “voting against same-sex marriage simply because your religion insists that it is wrong” so your attempt at distracting the issue is just that - a distraction.
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 5:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, “If someone had a non-religious reason for voting against same-sex marriage, that would be fine. I’m not aware of any” I will take a shot at that. There are several reasons that people may be against homosexual marriage.
1. Their faith, as you mentioned.
2. Their moral beliefs.
3. Homophobia.
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 6:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Skipp,
In my experience, 2 and 3 are also based on their religious beliefs. There may be homophobes who have another reason, but I’ve never met one nor read about any or what that reason might be.
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 6:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says, “If someone had a non-religious reason for voting against same-sex marriage, that would be fine. I’m not aware of any, however, and I’ve yet to ask someone that question who actually had one.”
Barack Obama said, “I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman.”
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 6:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says, “If someone had a non-religious reason for voting against same-sex marriage, that would be fine.”
So anyone can “impose” any value on everyone else as long as it’s not a religious value?
How convenient for extremist secular liberals.
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 7:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The writer, Mike McFarlane states “This sign was changed to say keep the homosexual out of government rather than keep religion out, and on one news cast this was termed a “hate crime” because it came against those with a lifestyle of homosexuality. Homosexuality is a belief system as well as a lifestyle choice, no different than any strictly observed religion choice. We both have our ideals, mindsets, and actions that reflect the position. The difference comes when you come against either of the two lifestyles.
Biology and neuroscience does not support the assumption the writer makes, that homosexuality is a choice or a belief system. If the writer does not understand that, then heterosexuality can be considered a belief system or a lifestyle choice. Discrimination is based on this flawed idea that homosexuality is aberrant, and even if God made all of these “mistakes” then Christians in particular should not deny them religious rights.
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 7:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
McFarlane: “Homosexuality is a belief system as well as a lifestyle choice, no different than any strictly observed religion choice.”
If the author of the letter believes that homosexuality is a matter of choice, he is also telling us that he is bi-sexual and not heterosexual. Such is the only conclusion one can reach if his statement is to be taken at face value.
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 7:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The writer states: “Therefore, if a Christian gets elected, he must,, out of duty to his electorate, govern like a Christian. This is the system our republic is based on.”
Really? So if a Jew votes for a Christian candidate that means he wants that candidate to govern like a Christian? I don’t think so.
And what does it mean “to govern like a Christian”?
Davinci: “Biology and neuroscience does not support the assumption the writer makes, that homosexuality is a choice or a belief system.”
I agree. (Don’t go into shock Davinci).
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 9:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I would have to disagree. I have, unfortunately, have been around people who have no religious convictions, yet treat homosexuals as subhuman. I think you may have based your belief on insufficient evidence.
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 10:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Barack Obama said, “I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman.”
Assuming your quote is accurate, which is not a given, he is stating that there are religious reasons for his not supporting gay marriage. Once again your own quote undermines your argument.
“So anyone can “impose” any value on everyone else as long as it’s not a religious value?
How convenient for extremist secular liberals.”
I’ve honestly never seen anyone who misses the point as consistently as you do. You must do it on purpose.
If someone votes against gay marriage for other than religious reasons, they aren’t imposing religious beliefs on anyone else, are they? That was the original point, which you are once more trying to distract attention from.
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 10:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Skipp: “Scott, I would have to disagree. I have, unfortunately, have been around people who have no religious convictions, yet treat homosexuals as subhuman. I think you may have based your belief on insufficient evidence.”
As I said, I’ve never met anyone who based non-acceptance of homosexuality on anything but religious belief. In all the discussions I’ve had on the subject I’ve never heard of anyone who could articulate a non-religiously-based reason for denying gays the same rights as heterosexuals. My belief is based on all the information I currently have. I never said it was all the information there is.
Posted November 4th, 2009 at 11:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH,
I guess Obama isn’t an ultra radical on every subject, huh? I’d venture to guess that you and he agree on that particular topic.
I bet that hurts.
Posted November 5th, 2009 at 8:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish; Davinci: “Biology and neuroscience does not support the assumption the writer makes, that homosexuality is a choice or a belief system.”
I agree. (Don’t go into shock Davinci).
Am just now coming out of strong seizure…..you did surprise me (gotta watch my assumptions) and so I wonder what is your position on same sex marriage?
Posted November 5th, 2009 at 8:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
davinci: “so I wonder what is your position on same sex marriage?”
For me the only issue where I am personally ambivalent is the use of the word “marriage”. I am all in favor of gay couples having the rights of married heterosexuals. Regarding the use of the word marriage, I don’t feel strongly one way or the other.
Posted November 5th, 2009 at 12:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott - First off, sarcasm and personalization weaken any logical argument you might have.
Let’s go back to the beginning.
JMH said: “Is there really a difference between someone VOTING a certain way, “basing his actions (the vote) on beliefs”, and “imposing those beliefs” by VOTING a certain way?”
My point is, and always has been, that the reasons underlying voting for or against ANY issue can be varied. Individuals may vote a certain way because they hold certain secular values and beliefs - or they may vote the same way based on religious values and beliefs. Either way can be construed as “imposing” that value or belief on everyone else. That’s just the way our system of government works.
You said, “If someone had a non-religious reason for voting against same-sex marriage, that would be fine.”
So it should be fine (with you) for someone to vote against gay marriage because they believe that the institution that we call “Marriage” is a spiritual bond and religious in nature. And that civil “marriages” are already defined as between a man and a woman - but that Civil Unions should provide equal civil rights to same-sex committed relationships?
Posted November 5th, 2009 at 1:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Scott - First off, sarcasm and personalization weaken any logical argument you might have.”
Sorry JMH but you have not demonstrated that you are worth a logical discussion. You continually misrepresent what your opponents actually say, quote-mine to support your positions and abandon topics when you are shown to be wrong. These are not the hallmarks of someone interested in logical arguments.
“Let’s go back to the beginning.
JMH said: “Is there really a difference between someone VOTING a certain way, “basing his actions (the vote) on beliefs”, and “imposing those beliefs” by VOTING a certain way?”
My point is, and always has been, that the reasons underlying voting for or against ANY issue can be varied. Individuals may vote a certain way because they hold certain secular values and beliefs - or they may vote the same way based on religious values and beliefs. Either way can be construed as “imposing” that value or belief on everyone else. That’s just the way our system of government works.”
We agree on that. Government by definition “imposes” a set of values on those who are governed. The problem is when elected officials abuse that by basing their decisions strictly on their religious beliefs. Do you think Janet Rowland has a non-religious reason for her refusal to have a non-sectarian prayer before her meetings? If there are no non-religious reasons for discriminating against gays with regard to marriage, then that discrimination should not be supported by the government.
“So it should be fine (with you) for someone to vote against gay marriage because they believe that the institution that we call “Marriage” is a spiritual bond and religious in nature.”
No, because marriage is not purely religious. It conveys civil benefits and responsibilities as well. Gays are denied those benefits.
“And that civil “marriages” are already defined as between a man and a woman - but that Civil Unions should provide equal civil rights to same-sex committed relationships?”
If they were equal, that would be fine. They aren’t.
Posted November 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I have to admit that you have surprised me. To take a small sample size, use inductive logic, and come to a conclusion is not like you. The next time someone makes a broad-brush statement concerning atheists you will be able to understand their thought process.
Posted November 5th, 2009 at 3:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Who says it was a small sample size? I’ve been following this issue for quite a while. All I’ve said was that I have not yet heard of a justification for denying same-sex marriage that was not religiously based in some way. That is still true. Ask your non-religious acquaintences why they think gays and lesbians should be denied the same rights as others and let me know. I’d be most interested to hear what their reasoning is based on. Your comment in post #24 leads me to think their position is more bigotry than anything else (i.e. treating them as “subhuman”) and that isn’t a valid reason for discrimination either. If their position is not rooted in religious traditions, I’d be surprised but I’m certainly willing to learn something new.
Posted November 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Can someone tell me why religion (and for that matter, religious people), a sacred institution, would involve itself in any manner in government, which is ultimately profane?
And let me address this statement:
Macfarlane: “Homosexuality is a belief system as well as a lifestyle choice, no different than any strictly observed religion choice.”
You can’t just make up definitions as you go! See below to get ’straightened out’
Collins English Dictionary:
The belief system of a person or society is the set of beliefs that they have about what is right and wrong and what is true and false.
[this cannot apply to all homosexuals, just as I am not part of a ‘white’ or ‘female’ belief system. It simply doesn’t exist.
homosexual n
1 a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex
adj
2 of or relating to homosexuals or homosexuality
3 of or relating to the same sex
[no mention here of being a unified group which holds the same beliefs of right and wrong.]
Lately in politics I’ve noticed people like to sling around one statement after another, to not only pigeonhole people and institutions they disagree with, but to support reality as they see it (can anyone say “socialism?”)
Posted November 5th, 2009 at 4:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
nickidarnell: “You can’t just make up definitions as you go! See below to get ’straightened out’”
A person who is a complete heterosexual cannot even entertain having sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex, much as a total homosexual would not entertain having a member of the opposite sex. It would be psychologically impossible to do either. So, when someone says that one’s sexuality is a “choice” they are ‘de facto’ admitting that they themselves had a choice and ‘chose’ one over the other. But, we thank the poster for his efforts to get “straightened out.”
nickidarnell: “Can someone tell me why religion (and for that matter, religious people), a sacred institution, would involve itself in any manner in government, which is ultimately profane?”
Because it has nothing to do with religion itself, it has to do with achieving control and power over others; i.e. domination.
Posted November 5th, 2009 at 4:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott #33
Your argument is disingenuous. In one sentence you say “denying same-sex marriage” and in the next sentence you say “denied the same rights as others”. These is two distinctly separate arguments.
As with any cultural issue it is not that simple. For most nonreligious opponents to gay marriage (I am one) we are not opposed to gay marriage or to deny anyone rights or privileges.
I for one do not believe that the gay marriage supporters have made a convincing argument that it is something we have to treat in the same manner as traditional marriage laws. I know you and others will disagree with me but you wanted a non religious response on this issue.
If you have read my posts you know I am no fan of the government, especially the Federal Govt. This is a state issue and should remain that way.
And you make it sound like the issue is not being addressed. There have been many states who have had gay marriage ballot issues. The issue is being presented to the voting public. Beyond that I find no reason to let gay marriage supporters bully their agenda beyond the ballot box.
If a state thru a ballot initiative makes the decision to change their marriage laws to include gay marriage then fine the people have spoken with their vote. It seems odd that the only vote you give value to is the one that is the same as yours.
I personally will not vote for a gay marriage initiative because I am wary of the additional “government” it would mean. It is not a moral or religious issue for me as much as it is an additional opportunity for the government to screw it up in so many ways.
I have gay family members and while they are not wild about my opinion they do understand that my objections are not for moral or religious reasons. We have long, meaningful debates and they understand that it is not as simple as not liking or not liking gays. There are a good number of issues where I error to the side of less government and this is one of those issues.
So believe it or not there are objections to gay marriage that are not based on “religious” points of view.
Posted November 5th, 2009 at 4:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
@RLaitres Thank you for your comments, and I should learn, if I want to post in discussion boards like this one, to not be sarcastic! see nickidarnell: “You can’t just make up definitions as you go! See below to get ’straightened out’” I am very aware of the nature of homosexuality, but you couldn’t know that! Thanks again.
Posted November 5th, 2009 at 5:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott - If you agree that the institution of marriage is both religious and civil, then you should also understand how the government redefining marriage can be viewed as an intrusion into religious practices. That’s what “separation of church and state” is all about.
If Civil Unions should provide equal civil rights to same-sex committed relationships, but don’t, why don’t gay rights activists focus their attention on changing those laws? (just asking for your opinion)
Posted November 5th, 2009 at 5:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
whiskeyman: “Your argument is disingenuous. In one sentence you say “denying same-sex marriage” and in the next sentence you say “denied the same rights as others”. These is two distinctly separate arguments.”
These are not separate arguments. Heterosexuals have the right to marry and gain specific civil benefits as a result. These rights are denied to homosexuals simply by virtue of their choice of partner. Denying same-sex marriage is denying giving some people the same rights as others.
Rights are not granted by the majority. Regardless of whether a majority of the population is against same sex marriage, it is still discrimination.
Posted November 5th, 2009 at 6:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Scott - If you agree that the institution of marriage is both religious and civil, then you should also understand how the government redefining marriage can be viewed as an intrusion into religious practices. That’s what “separation of church and state” is all about.”
Claiming religious freedom cannot justify discrimination. An equally valid argument could be made that since marriage provides civil benefits, religion’s attempt to prevent certain groups from receiving those benefits is a religious intrusion into government matters. If a church doesn’t want to recognize someone’s marriage, that’s fine. But the church shouldn’t have the power to deny people benefits that are granted by the government. And that is the situation we have now.
“If Civil Unions should provide equal civil rights to same-sex committed relationships, but don’t, why don’t gay rights activists focus their attention on changing those laws? (just asking for your opinion)”
Why should gays have to redefine their relationship because some people don’t like the thought of them being married? You are asking them to accept what amounts to second-class status. Why should they accept that?
Posted November 5th, 2009 at 6:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
We go over and over this, not because people don’t understand the words, but cannot either because they do not understand the concept, or refuse to accept it. Marriage, as far is the state goes, is nothing but a legal contract between two individuals. Perhaps it would be made clearer to some if, like other countries, we required that marriages be performed by a civil magistrate and, if the couple wants a church wedding, have one of those also.
Religion has absolutely nothing to do with it but wants to stick its nose into it because it wants to claim ownership of it. That has nothing to do with marriage itself, but with the fact that religion and religious leaders want to control others who may not even subscribe to their particular religion or sect, which is the extent to which they should be involved, the religious part and those who choose to belong to that religion, not beyond.
Posted November 5th, 2009 at 7:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
whiskeyman: “I for one do not believe that the gay marriage supporters have made a convincing argument that it is something we have to treat in the same manner as traditional marriage laws. I know you and others will disagree with me but you wanted a non religious response on this issue.”
Not wishing to question the poster’s sincerity, the real question is, why should they have to make any argument at all. Why does the poster believe, for whatever reason, he is owed or due one? Personally, I do not believe I am. I may not like something others do, and may very well “feel” or disagree with it but, unless it is harmful (real harm not an imagined or intellectually constructed one) to me or someone else, I consider it none of my business. That, and the fact that it is not my life, but theirs.
whiskeyman: “This is a state issue and should remain that way.”
This is not a state issue at all. It is a “freedom of conscience” and one that goes to the very core of what this country is all about. No person exists for another. No other person, as an individual, exists for me and I, as a person, in turn do not exist for any other.
whiskeyman: “If a state thru a ballot initiative makes the decision to change their marriage laws to include gay marriage then fine the people have spoken with their vote.”
Not everything in this country should be subject to a “vote” or “popularity”. The principle of freedom of conscience is one of them.
Whiskeyman complains that government will make a “mess of things” well, I would ask him, is not interfering in the personal life of a private citizen, or coming between him/her and his/her conscience, the worst of all possible transgressons against the individual, no matter what the motivation. Is it not also the greatest possible source of messes that could ever be conceived?
Posted November 5th, 2009 at 7:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Whiskeyman complains that government will make a “mess of things” well, I would ask him, is not interfering in the personal life of a private citizen, or coming between him/her and his/her conscience, the worst of all possible transgressons against the individual, no matter what the motivation. Is it not also the greatest possible source of messes that could ever be conceived?
I appreciate this comment RL
It is a diminishing majority of individuals who think it is their religious/moral right to take offense at same sex marriage. Many Christians do not support this view. It does not make sense to me that the sheer number of individuals who impose discrimination based on religious/moral grounds, appear to use that majority idea as evidence of being moral, right and justified in their viewpoint. There is critical mass approaching.
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 9:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH says, “If Civil Unions should provide equal civil rights to same-sex committed relationships, but don’t, why don’t gay rights activists focus their attention on changing those laws?”
Scott says, “Why should gays have to redefine their relationship because some people don’t like the thought of them being married?”
It is gays themselves who are demanding to redefine their own relationship under the umbrella of traditional marriage. Is it not gays who have invaded Church property, disrupted Religious services, and demanded the “right” to redefine Marriage. Who is infringing on whose rights?
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 10:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “It is gays themselves who are demanding to redefine their own relationship under the umbrella of traditional marriage.”
As far as the state is concerned that is all marriage is, a contract. So, why should we have any type of restriction on who can marry whom or, in law, set up a separate class of citizen”, one who is allowed to enter into such contracts, and another which is not? The fact is that they want to do so would seem to indicate that they somehow consider themselves “more worthy” or, “more equal” than others, based solely upon their own sexual orientation.
What we are seeing here is that some so-called traditionalists, egged on in large part by their churches and those in pulpits, are unable to see, fail to recognize or admit, that it nothing more than wishing to impose their will upon others. What we are seeing here is a clear difference between who will look at things in a rational and logical manner, and those who are in large part motivated by emotion which, in large part, what religion is based upon, an emotional need.
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 10:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “It is gays themselves who are demanding to redefine their own relationship under the umbrella of traditional marriage.”
Exactly!!!! Why do you assume this a bad thing? Aren’t they entitled to marry the person of their choice just as anyone else is? What difference should it make to anyone else if that person happens to be of the same sex?
“Is it not gays who have invaded Church property, disrupted Religious services, and demanded the “right” to redefine Marriage. Who is infringing on whose rights?
Let me rephrase your statement to see if it makes sense to you. Note that I am not attributing this statement to you, only changing the situation to try to demonstrate how your remarks might be seen in another light.
Is it not blacks who have invaded white property, disrupted white activities, and demanded the “right” to be treated as equals? Who is infringing on whose rights?
Would you say the same thing under these circumstances? Why is the gay rights movement any different than the civil rights movement? The only difference I can see is that it is the religious establishment spearheading the effort to continue the discrimination. Perhaps that is why gays have disrupted church services - one must get the attention of your opponent before any discussion can take place.
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 2:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
1. JMH says, “If Civil Unions should provide equal civil rights to same-sex committed relationships, but don’t, why don’t gay rights activists focus their attention on changing those laws?”
2. Scott says, “Why should gays have to redefine their relationship because some people don’t like the thought of them being married?”
3. JMH: “It is gays themselves who are demanding to redefine their own relationship under the umbrella of traditional marriage.”
4. Scott says, “Exactly!”
:-)You just created your own perfect circular argument in 4 easy steps.
I said, “If Civil Unions should provide equal civil rights to same-sex committed relationships, but don’t, why don’t gay rights activists focus their attention on changing those laws?”
Then you said “Why should gays have to redefine their relationship…”
But now you agree that gays themselves want to redefine their relationship.
So… try for a straight answer this time: If gays themselves are demanding to redefine their own relationships, and if Civil Unions could provide equal civil rights to same-sex committed relationships - why not focus on Civil Unions rather than demanding/imposing a new definition of Marriage?
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 2:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “1. JMH says, “If Civil Unions should provide equal civil rights to same-sex committed relationships, but don’t, why don’t gay rights activists focus their attention on changing those laws?”
2. Scott says, “Why should gays have to redefine their relationship because some people don’t like the thought of them being married?”
3. JMH: “It is gays themselves who are demanding to redefine their own relationship under the umbrella of traditional marriage.”
4. Scott says, “Exactly!”
:-)You just created your own perfect circular argument in 4 easy steps.”
Ah, I see your confusion. I was coming at the issue from different angles on those two points, and I didn’t make that clear. Sorry.
Right now, gays cannot “marry”, right? They can have “civil unions”, which convey some of the benefits as marriage, but with additional effort and hassle that heterosexuals do not have to deal with. What they want is simply marriage. They don’t want to be limited to “civil unions” and have to define themselves that way. That is what I was referring to in your point #2. What they want to do is be able to is marry the person of their choice. That will “redefine” their relationships the same way everyone else does, which is what I was referring to in your point #4. Sorry for the confusion.
By the way, you neglected to answer my question about why this is considered to be a bad thing. Any answers?
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 2:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says: “Right now, gays cannot “marry”, right? They can have “civil unions”, which convey some of the benefits as marriage, but with additional effort and hassle that heterosexuals do not have to deal with.”
Like what?
What’s wrong with Civil Unions?
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 3:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What this argument boils down to is that some want to reserve ownership of a word, and they being the only one’s entitled to use it. That is all which is JMH’s arguments boil down to. What such individuals usually have done is erect some emotional barrier (something we all do from time to time) that prevents them from moving beyond what they have believed, and probably for decades.
In my own posts, I have mentioned (several times) that marriage, in the eyes of the state, is nothing but a contract between parties, much as is any other contract. So, what we are really dealing with is contract law and nothing else. Yet, that does not appear to get through to some individuals or they refuse to accept it. Either I am not expressing myself correctly, or the concept is too simple to be understood.
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 3:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s not marriage. Why should they have to settle?
And you STILL haven’t answered my question.
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 3:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “What’s wrong with Civil Unions?”
In the eyes of the state, that is what a marriage is, and nothing else. Why use two words when we have one that does quite nicely, and for which a body of law already exists?
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 3:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As I posted earlier, I believe that gay couples in a committed relationship should have the same rights as heterosexuals who marry. I, frankly, do not object to gay couples “marrying” but the most important issue, I believe is that of equal rights.
It seems to me that the gay community ought to approach this issue in two steps. If they worked towards equal rights resulting from a civil union they would get everything but the word marriage. And if they pursued this path, I believe they have a good chance of achieving it in a large number of states. Go there first. Get equal rights. After that is achieved, work towards the second and final step.
Getting stuck in an all or nothing demand for use of the word marriage will just delay the more important aspect of their quest.
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 3:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If the objective is known, defined and acknowledged, and there is a direct path to it, why would anyone choose to take a detour? What possible valid argument could ever be presented for doing so?
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 3:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
Delay it? Probably, but its a matter of principle. Denying same sex marriage is discrimination, plain and simple. It isn’t right. I don’t believe they want to settle for one thing and work on fixing that wrong later. Going back to the civil rights example I tried to use with JMH, do you think blacks would have accepted a status equal to a citizen if it was called “inhabitant” even if it conveyed the same rights?
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 3:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The issue of civil rights for blacks and other minorities is a good example of how “separate but equal” does not work. Using that approach again would mean that we have not learned from that experience. All it does is drag the issue on and on, creating more conflicts and more bad feelings than ever would be by addressing and resolving the fundamental question head-on. I would doubt that anyone who has studied the issue of civil rights with blacks would want to repeat those same mistakes, just with a different issue or group.
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 5:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, pushing for equal rights in a civil union can be gotten more easily. And once that step is in place, the second should also come easier.
I like to work with reality. And I see reality in this case. One can be an idealist to the end and die disappointed. But maybe some prefer that. I don’t.
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 5:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And like RLaitres said, your solution is a modern day version of “separate but equal.” Why do you think that will work any better now than it did before?
Again, do you think that creating a new status called “inhabitant” would have satisfied the civil rights activists?
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 7:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL says, “In the eyes of the state, that is what a marriage is, and nothing else. Why use two words when we have one that does quite nicely, and for which a body of law already exists?”
And that contract and body of laws exists and was developed around the common interest of the state, and the shared culture, to encourage a more stable bond between a man and a woman as they nurture the next generation of citizens. In reality, marriage laws RESTRICT individual property rights of a man and a woman and, historically, help ensure the rights of biological children to be cared for and/or supported by their biological Mother and biological Father. And as much as the Left would like to wipe out gender differences, there ARE ‘hard-wired’ differences between men and women, and maternal and paternal child-rearing. Children need both - and it’s quite well established that children raised by two biological parents do better on every measure of development and in later life than children raised by single Moms (only a female role model), or single Dads (only a male role model), or step-families. The rights and restrictions conferred by the State through marriage laws exist for the purpose of monogamous procreational sexual relationships, raising children and solidifying families - not just for love or recreational sex.
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 8:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “And that contract and body of laws exists and was developed around the common interest of the state, and the shared culture, to encourage a more stable bond between a man and a woman as they nurture the next generation of citizens.”
JMH: “The rights and restrictions conferred by the State through marriage laws exist for the purpose of monogamous procreational sexual relationships, raising children and solidifying families - not just for love or recreational sex.”
The poster should exercuse great care in using such arguments as it is the same one used by the NAZI, and other totalitarian regimes, in getting their citizens to “reproduce” and provide the STATE with a next generation. In doing so, the poster is admitting that marriage is for nothing more than the creation of “breeding pairs” to serve the interests of the state.
What he is also arguing is that those who cannot reproduce (either because of biological causes or age) cannot get married and those whose marriage was but for the begetting and raising of children is automatically dissolved when those years are passed.
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 9:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Not to mention that she is justifying the discrimination of a minority group in order to further the interests of the majority.
Nice.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 11:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL says, “The poster should exercuse great care in using such arguments as it is the same one used by the NAZI, and other totalitarian regimes, in getting their citizens to “reproduce” and provide the STATE with a next generation.”
Thankfully, we have a democratic Republic and not a totalitarian regime. But if you’re worried that my words will confuse those who don’t understand the context and intent of our marriage laws, try this:
- And that (marriage) contract and body of laws exists and was developed around the common interests of a stable and productive society, shared culture, social norms and economic advantages that encourage a stable bond between a man and a woman who have the potential to create and nurture the next generation.
RL says, “In doing so, the poster is admitting that marriage is for nothing more than the creation of “breeding pairs” to serve the interests of the state.”
No, just acknowledging that reproduction and raising a family is the natural function and goal of most marriages and naturally serves to “populate” any society. Without childbearing, the population dwindles and society disappears. Cultural values and “good” standards of behavior are passed on through stable families.
RL says, “What he is also arguing is that those who cannot reproduce (either because of biological causes or age) cannot get married and those whose marriage was but for the begetting and raising of children is automatically dissolved when those years are passed.”
Nope. But under the circumstances you mention, marriage is not necessary for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Any two people can love each other, commit their lives to each other, share property, designate inheritance to anyone they want, engage in any sexual behavior they want (in private), etc. - without any license from the government or approval of society.
Scott says, “Not to mention that she is justifying the discrimination of a minority group in order to further the interests of the majority.”
We have lots of laws and social norms that could be construed to “discriminate” when in fact they exist to set standards of behavior. Legal restrictions and social taboos with regards to same-sex relationships aren’t being “discriminatory” because they apply to behaviors, not people or any group of people. Our marriage laws don’t JUST apply to homosexuals. Heterosexuals can’t marry a same-sex roommate or friend either, and - throughout history - there have been taboos against certain sexual behaviors, including sexual behavior between individuals of the same sex. As evidenced by current discussions, there are still social taboos against even talking about those sexual behaviors, i.e. how the initial spread of the AIDS epidemic flourished in the sexually active homosexual population. How often does one hear about how homosexual behaviors in men have created a new cluster of life-limiting health problems unrelated to the overall increase in STDs due to both heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity.
Again, any culture that doesn’t support reproduction and actively promotes “anything goes” sex outside the context of child-rearing within stable family units will deteriorate and/or dwindle and disappear. Isn’t that exactly what we see happening in America?
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 11:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “Again, do you think that creating a new status called “inhabitant” would have satisfied the civil rights activists?”
No. But if equal rights were offered first, and the correct word followed later, I would rather take the first step ASAP and the second step as soon thereafter as possible. I would not cut off my nose to spite my face.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 11:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Could it perhaps be that some place too much emphasis on sex itself (nothing but a physical act common accross the animal kingdom) and attempt to rationalize that obsession by ascribing to it greater importance than it actually has, all too often based upon nothing more than personal feeling and searching to rationalize it in such things as the “good of the state” or base it on religious foundations.
‘ But if equal rights were offered first, and the correct word followed later, I would rather take the first step ASAP and the second step as soon thereafter as possible.”
The poster therefore admits that gays and lesbians do not now have equal rights and wishes to “offer” them. That is not something that is to be “offered” by others but that which, in this country “ARE” (or at least should be). In that scenario, there are no “steps”. In fact, they are not allowable.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 12:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “The poster therefore admits that gays and lesbians do not now have equal rights and wishes to “offer” them.”
The poster admits nothing. But for the lack of reading comprehension RL would have clearly understood that I am 100% in favor of equal rights to gay couples in a committed relationship.
But for the lack of reading comprehension RL would understand that my posts relate to the approach being taken to reach the same objective, not with the objective itself.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 12:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: :We have lots of laws and social norms that could be construed to “discriminate” when in fact they exist to set standards of behavior.”
Standards change.
“Legal restrictions and social taboos with regards to same-sex relationships aren’t being “discriminatory” because they apply to behaviors, not people or any group of people.”
Behaviors that do not harm anyone, they just go against traditional norms. That doesn’t make those behaviors wrong by default.
“Our marriage laws don’t JUST apply to homosexuals. Heterosexuals can’t marry a same-sex roommate or friend either, and - throughout history - there have been taboos against certain sexual behaviors, including sexual behavior between individuals of the same sex.”
So its okay to discriminate because it has been a taboo? Sorry, don’t agree.
“As evidenced by current discussions, there are still social taboos against even talking about those sexual behaviors, i.e. how the initial spread of the AIDS epidemic flourished in the sexually active homosexual population. How often does one hear about how homosexual behaviors in men have created a new cluster of life-limiting health problems unrelated to the overall increase in STDs due to both heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity.”
And this has what to do with whether they should have the same right to marry the person of their choice?
“Again, any culture that doesn’t support reproduction and actively promotes “anything goes” sex outside the context of child-rearing within stable family units will deteriorate and/or dwindle and disappear. Isn’t that exactly what we see happening in America?”
No, its not. We see a small minority that is actively discriminated against on the basis of tradition and taboo. Should we force people to be heterosexual for the good of the country? It that what you are advocating?
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 12:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “No. But if equal rights were offered first, and the correct word followed later, I would rather take the first step ASAP and the second step as soon thereafter as possible. I would not cut off my nose to spite my face.”
That is your choice. If you agree that the civil rights activists wouldn’t have made that same choice, why should the gays and lesbians of today choose that option? Why set up a separate system when the existing one, by your own admission, does the same thing?
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 12:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
What RL is saying is that you may well be in favor of gay rights, but you are admitting, but “offering them” that they do not have them now. Do you disagree with that?
Since this is America, where everyone is supposedly equal, and a small part of our population is being discriminated against, then there should be no intermediate steps towards treating them equally. You are essentially proposing the gay version of Jim Crow laws. Do you really think that is a viable alternative?
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 12:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “That is your choice.” I’m saying that I believe it would accomplish the final objective quicker.
“If you agree that the civil rights activists wouldn’t have made that same choice, why should the gays and lesbians of today choose that option?”
My agreement was that I do not believe that the first step alone would not satisfy.
“Why set up a separate system when the existing one, by your own admission, does the same thing?”
Because I believe that in the real world, where very state election shows the majority of the population opposes gay marriage, I would rather move the ball forward than stay in place.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 12:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
Rights are not approved by the majority.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 12:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Remember the Maine.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 12:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I have made myself as clear as I can possibly make myself. If you want to twist my words so that you can make it look like I oppose committed gay couples having the same rights as married heterosexual couples, then have a great time.
I happen to live in the real world. If it makes you feel better to bitch at infinatum while accomplishing nothing, I wish you a great career.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 12:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So its okay to discriminate because it has been a taboo?
It’s not discrimination. The same law applies to EVERYONE.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 12:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
You’re the one twisting words. I recognize that you are in favor of gay rights and I’ve never said otherwise. But the course of action you propose is discriminatory, even if it may, eventually lead to the desired goal.
JMH,
You have missed the point by so far you aren’t even in the same county. The Jim Crow laws applied to everyone also. Were they discriminatory?
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 12:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “You’re the one twisting words. I recognize that you are in favor of gay rights and I’ve never said otherwise. But the course of action you propose is discriminatory, even if it may, eventually lead to the desired goal.”
My friend, that discrimination already exists.
Let me try one more time.
Gay couples in a committed relationship do not, today, have the same rights as married heterosexual couples. I am in favor of gay and heterosexual couples having the same rights.
Gay marriage is opposed by the majority of Americans, including, if one was to believe his words, president Obama.
It will take time to change that view.
So I look at two possibilities:
A. Continue to press for legalization of gay marriage and accept nothing less. That could take a long time to achieve given that the issue has lost every time it has been attempted with Maine being the most recent example.
B. Try to first achieve equal rights for gay civil unions. Something which I believe can be accomplished more quickly. Then, continue the fight for legalization of gay marriage.
I choose B. Which do you choose?
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 1:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH says, “Legal restrictions and social taboos with regards to same-sex relationships aren’t being “discriminatory” because they apply to behaviors, not people or any group of people.”
Scott says, “Behaviors that do not harm anyone, they just go against traditional norms. That doesn’t make those behaviors wrong by default.”
By what moral authority? You? That doesn’t make them “right” or “good” either.
You know of course you are merely articulating the liberal secular/materialistic, ME-generation, hedonistic, morally relativistic value system. Others disagree.
JMH says, “As evidenced by current discussions, there are still social taboos against even talking about those sexual behaviors, i.e. how the initial spread of the AIDS epidemic flourished in the sexually active homosexual population. How often does one hear about how homosexual behaviors in men have created a new cluster of life-limiting health problems unrelated to the overall increase in STDs due to both heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity.”
Scott says, “And this has what to do with whether they should have the same right to marry the person of their choice?”
We were talking about social taboos towards certain behaviors, not marriage. See above.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 1:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “Gay couples in a committed relationship do not, today, have the same rights as married heterosexual couples. I am in favor of gay and heterosexual couples having the same rights.”
And I have never said otherwise.
“Gay marriage is opposed by the majority of Americans, including, if one was to believe his words, president Obama.”
Again, rights are not conveyed by majority opinion.
“It will take time to change that view.”
Just like it is taking time to change the opinion that blacks are entitled to the same rights as whites. That is still ongoing in some places. That doesn’t mean it took a majority opinion to grant them those rights.
“So I look at two possibilities:
A. Continue to press for legalization of gay marriage and accept nothing less. That could take a long time to achieve given that the issue has lost every time it has been attempted with Maine being the most recent example.”
I have no doubt it will continue to lose. That’s why I think it will come down to a Supreme Court decision. I believe there is one on the table for next year.
“B. Try to first achieve equal rights for gay civil unions. Something which I believe can be accomplished more quickly. Then, continue the fight for legalization of gay marriage.”
And institute Jim Crow laws for gays. Separate but Equal has already been deemed to be unconstitutional. Your idea may well get the support of the majority of the population, but that doesn’t make it right.
“I choose B. Which do you choose?”
I choose to end the discrimination, not continue it with a system that has already failed and been ruled unconstitutional.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 1:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “By what moral authority? You? That doesn’t make them “right” or “good” either.”
I didn’t say me. There you go again, reading things into what I say that aren’t there. As to what moral authority, the only moral authority that exists - the culture in which the laws are instituted. In this case, it may well take a Supreme Court decision as the “moral authority”.
“You know of course you are merely articulating the liberal secular/materialistic, ME-generation, hedonistic, morally relativistic value system. Others disagree.”
Good for them. Calling those you disagree with names doesn’t make them wrong, either. And morals ARE relative.
“We were talking about social taboos towards certain behaviors, not marriage. See above.”
Funny. We started out talking about gay marriage. You must have tried to change the subject in order to distract attention from your support of discriminating against a minority. I don’t blame you, but please try to stay on topic, okay?
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 1:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I never said that civil rights should be conveyed by the majority. All I’ve said is that the majority is preventing those rights and that I live in the real world and not in fantasy land.
I am looking at the system as it exists today. I am proposing a process to get to the desired end in the most expeditious way and getting as much done as quckly as possible.
I think it is uncaring to say to those without rights that I will only accept an all or nothing approach.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 1:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “Scott, I never said that civil rights should be conveyed by the majority. All I’ve said is that the majority is preventing those rights and that I live in the real world and not in fantasy land.”
Do you really not see the disconnect in what you just said? If the majority has the power to prevent a minority from enjoying certain rights, then how can you turn around and say that the majority does not convey those rights? I’d re-evaluate your certainty about not being in fantasy land.
“I am looking at the system as it exists today. I am proposing a process to get to the desired end in the most expeditious way and getting as much done as quckly as possible.”
And that process has already failed and been ruled unconstitutional. Why do you think it is a viable alternative now?
“I think it is uncaring to say to those without rights that I will only accept an all or nothing approach.”
And I think that is exactly what they want to hear. When it comes to civil rights, why should it not be all or nothing? Why should they settle for less?
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 1:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “And I think that is exactly what they want to hear. When it comes to civil rights, why should it not be all or nothing? Why should they settle for less?”
So, a black man is enslaved and wants to be free and also have the right to vote, in the same way that whites have the right to be free and the right to vote.
If the process to let that black man be free can be accomplished relatively quickly, but the right to vote may take a long time to achieve, would your choice be to keep the black man in slavery until the time comes when he is granted the right to vote?
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 2:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
That is an excellent and intelligent question. I think you have a very good point with that, but in the case of gay marriage I don’t think it really applies because they are not enslaved, or anything approximating slavery. There is really just the one issue, that of marriage. So it is more like they have been freed, and now all that remains is to give them the right to vote. You seem to want to break it up into at least two steps, when all that is required is one.
I do agree that they will probably not get the right to marry by popular vote. I really think it will come down to a court case and a Supreme Court decision that you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual preference any more than you can on the basis of race or gender.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 2:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I gave you an extreme example to illustrate my position. I have gay friends in committed, loving, long-term reltionships, and they do not have the same rights as married couples. I want those rights extended to them now even if they have to wait to be officially married.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 6:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
My point is why should they have to wait? There is already a legal mechanism for extending those rights to them, and its the same one that lets them be officially married. Why complicate the issue with a new category? It’s the simplest way to accomplish both.
I realize that the majority of the population is against it. That doesn’t matter. If I cared what the majority thought I wouldn’t be an atheist. It comes down to what’s right and what’s not.
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 5:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott said, “I didn’t say me. There you go again, reading things into what I say that aren’t there.”
No, I asked a question.
Scott says, “Calling those you disagree with names doesn’t make them wrong, either.”
Where did I call anyone any names?
JMH said, “Legal restrictions and social taboos with regards to same-sex relationships aren’t being “discriminatory” because they apply to behaviors, not people or any group of people.”
(Bans against same-sex marriage apply to everyone and not just homosexuals, therefore not a case of discrimination - by definition)
JMH said, “We have lots of laws and social norms that could be construed to “discriminate” when in fact they exist to set standards of behavior.”
Scott said, “Standards change.”
That still doesn’t make the standards discriminatory.
Scott said, “The Jim Crow laws applied to everyone also. Were they discriminatory?”
The Jim Crow laws that prohibited “coloreds” from using the same entrance to hospitals, or school books, or bathrooms, etc. were discriminatory, no doubt. But the inter-racial marriage laws were not discriminatory, by definition. Not to mention there was just as much resistance to inter-marriage in the minority community as there was in the majority. Anyway, under Jim Crow laws, everyone could get married, but Whites couldn’t marry Blacks any more than a Black person could marry a White. Who did the inter-marriage laws discriminate against?
Interestingly, it’s not usually African Americans who equate gay marriage to Jim Crow laws and many African Americans express resentment towards the attempt to equate gay civil rights to the Civil Rights movement. 70% of African Americans voted for Prop 8 in California. And while there were a few gay extremist claims of bigotry leveled against the Black community, the most vicious backlash has been against Churches.
The fact of the matter is that gay marriage IS a religious issue. Scott, you yourself said, “The tradition is religiously based”. So too, homosexual behaviors are considered immoral by most of the world’s major religions. Claiming that people shouldn’t vote against changing a religious tradition based on their religious beliefs is at best a strawman argument - or maybe just ridiculous.
Scott said, “As to what moral authority, the only moral authority that exists - the culture in which the laws are instituted. In this case, it may well take a Supreme Court decision as the “moral authority”
While I wouldn’t agree that the culture is ever a MORAL Authority, in this case, the “culture in which the laws are instituted”, in 31 states, has now defended the tradition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Claiming “tyranny of the majority” can apply to anything we vote on, so that’s a moot point.
I’d agree that the Supreme Court’s job is to sort out “clashes of rights”, but SCOTUS must view it’s decisions through the authority granted in the Constitution and from “the people”, - not as the Moral Authority of the Land. And since the Constitution guarantees Religious Freedom, the issue is a lot more complicated than simply redefining the concept of marriage as purely secular, or any questionable “right” to have societal or religious approval to be “married”. The ramifications on curtailing religious freedoms are enormous, as evidenced by some of the court cases that have already taken place.
What many religious folks are concerned about with the gay marriage issue is the slow erosion of Religious Freedom. And in IMHO, it’s people like yourself whose main agenda is just that, who are holding back the more important CIVIL rights which can easily be conferred through CIVIL unions and all the other legal mechanisms that are already in place. Without changing the concept of marriage, what rights are not already conferred through civil laws? As I said before, any two people can love each other, commit their lives to each other, share property, designate inheritance to anyone they want, engage in any sexual behavior they want (in private). Maybe I’m missing something else?
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 7:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“No, I asked a question.”
Why would you even ask if I think I should be the ultimate moral authority? I’ve said on many occasions that I don’t think there is one.
“Where did I call anyone any names?”
From your post #76: “…liberal secular/materialistic, ME-generation, hedonistic, morally relativistic…” Those are adjectives that I seriously doubt were intended to be complimentary. Do you deny you were referring to people you disagree with?
“That still doesn’t make the standards discriminatory.”
Yes, actually it does if the standards restrict people from making choices that other people are allowed to make without interference.
“The Jim Crow laws that prohibited “coloreds” from using the same entrance to hospitals, or school books, or bathrooms, etc. were discriminatory, no doubt. But the inter-racial marriage laws were not discriminatory, by definition. Not to mention there was just as much resistance to inter-marriage in the minority community as there was in the majority. Anyway, under Jim Crow laws, everyone could get married, but Whites couldn’t marry Blacks any more than a Black person could marry a White. Who did the inter-marriage laws discriminate against?”
Those who wanted to do what the laws said they couldn’t do. Just like the gays and lesbians of today are discriminated against by not being allowed to marry the person of their choice. You seem to be under the impression that the discrimination lies in who the law applies to when it point of fact it lies in what choices are allowed. Big difference.
“Interestingly, it’s not usually African Americans who equate gay marriage to Jim Crow laws and many African Americans express resentment towards the attempt to equate gay civil rights to the Civil Rights movement. 70% of African Americans voted for Prop 8 in California. And while there were a few gay extremist claims of bigotry leveled against the Black community, the most vicious backlash has been against Churches.”
Probably because they pumped the most money into defeating it. So much for the churches remaining politically neutral, huh?
“The fact of the matter is that gay marriage IS a religious issue. Scott, you yourself said, “The tradition is religiously based”.
And if a church doesn’t want to recognize that marriage, they have that right. But why should people be denied the civil benefits that marriage conveys because churches don’t like it?
“So too, homosexual behaviors are considered immoral by most of the world’s major religions. Claiming that people shouldn’t vote against changing a religious tradition based on their religious beliefs is at best a strawman argument - or maybe just ridiculous.”
Or maybe it shows that those religions are obsolete.
While I wouldn’t agree that the culture is ever a MORAL Authority,”
Really? In many African cultures it is considered acceptable for a woman to go topless. That is certainly not the case in this country. Different culture, different morals.
“…in this case, the “culture in which the laws are instituted”, in 31 states, has now defended the tradition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Claiming “tyranny of the majority” can apply to anything we vote on, so that’s a moot point.”
And claiming that something is moral just because the majority currently agrees is the very definition of “tyranny of the majority”. I’m sure you think it’s moot because that is precisely what your are defending, but that doesn’t sound so good.
“I’d agree that the Supreme Court’s job is to sort out “clashes of rights”, but SCOTUS must view it’s decisions through the authority granted in the Constitution and from “the people”, - not as the Moral Authority of the Land.” And since the Constitution guarantees Religious Freedom, the issue is a lot more complicated than simply redefining the concept of marriage as purely secular, or any questionable “right” to have societal or religious approval to be “married”. The ramifications on curtailing religious freedoms are enormous, as evidenced by some of the court cases that have already taken place.”
Allowing a minority the same rights as everyone else infringes on no one’s religious freedoms. That is the most ridiculous argument I’ve heard you make yet. Letting a gay couple marry curtails someone else’s religious freedoms? Be serious.
“What many religious folks are concerned about with the gay marriage issue is the slow erosion of Religious Freedom.”
Not being allowed to impose your religious values on others is not an erosion of religious freedom, capitalized or not.
“And in IMHO, it’s people like yourself whose main agenda is just that,”
Ah, so now you presume to know what my agenda is. Right.
“…who are holding back the more important CIVIL rights which can easily be conferred through CIVIL unions and all the other legal mechanisms that are already in place.”
Separate but equal didn’t work then, so why should it work now? Other than protecting your perceived right to keep them darn weirdos in their place.
“Without changing the concept of marriage, what rights are not already conferred through civil laws?”
Civil unions are not recognized by other states. Couples in civil unions cannot file joint tax returns or receive tax benefits that married couples can. Couples in civil unions are not considered “spouses” for purposes of insurance benefits or even hospital visitation. Someone in a civil union cannot sponsor their partner for immigration. Some of these situations can be arranged by an attorney, but that costs a lot of money that a married couple does not have to spend, and the paperwork must be carried and shown in order to prove the relationship. Are you actually trying to say this is an equal situation?
“As I said before, any two people can love each other, commit their lives to each other, share property, designate inheritance to anyone they want, engage in any sexual behavior they want (in private). Maybe I’m missing something else?”
Yes. The fact that they cannot marry. That’s important to some people. And you’re wrong about some of those other things as well.
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 8:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH said, “Anyway, under Jim Crow laws, everyone could get married, but Whites couldn’t marry Blacks any more than a Black person could marry a White. Who did the inter-marriage laws discriminate against?”
Scott says, “Those who wanted to do what the laws said they couldn’t do.”
You’re kidding, right? According to your logic then, anyone who breaks any law could claim discrimination. And anyone who doesn’t “want” to follow a law could claim discrimination. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
Scott said: “You seem to be under the impression that the discrimination lies in who the law applies to…”
YES. That’s the DEFINITION of discrimination. UNEQUAL application of a law based on who you are.
Scott: “…when it point of fact it lies in what choices are allowed.”
No. All laws limit choices. Does anyone have a choice not to follow any law, just because they don’t want to? The definition of discrimination is applying a law differentially. According to your definition, anyone can break the law and claim discrimination if he/she simply “wanted” to. Gosh, if I don’t want to follow drunk driving laws and get stopped for weaving after a New Year’s party, can I claim discrimination against party-goers, or people who weave while driving, or alcoholics, or late-night sleepy drivers? If I don’t want to pay taxes, can I claim discrimination and get off the hook? Think that will work?
Look, there are lots of reasons to argue for or against same-sex marriage. Discrimination just isn’t one of them.
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 9:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott said, “Allowing a minority the same rights as everyone else infringes on no one’s religious freedoms.”
Not when it involves the government redefining a religious practice.
Scott says, “Letting a gay couple marry curtails someone else’s religious freedoms? Be serious.”
Seriously, it’s not about “letting a gay couple marry”, it’s about the government redefining the religious practice of “holy marriage” to include same-sex marriage.
JMH said, “….homosexual behaviors are considered immoral by most of the world’s major religions. Claiming that people shouldn’t vote against changing a religious tradition based on their religious beliefs is at best a strawman argument - or maybe just ridiculous.”
Scott says, “Or maybe it shows that those religions are obsolete.”
That’s not for anyone else to decide. And that IS the law.
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 9:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, would a small business owner be able to provide benefits to only one type of marriage or would that owner’s religious freedoms be infringed on by requiring him/her to provide the same benefits to all types of marriages?
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 10:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH
Marriage is a civic institution, not merely a religious one, which is the germane point. Recognizing that adults–regardless of their gender, gender identification, or orientation–have the same equal protection under the law as per how the law (i.e. civic institutions) treat them is a fundamental precept of American ideal, even if those ideals take some time to realize. Many people argued against interracial marriage, merely a few decades ago, based on their religious beliefs.
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 10:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “You’re kidding, right? According to your logic then, anyone who breaks any law could claim discrimination. And anyone who doesn’t “want” to follow a law could claim discrimination. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?”
Sure they can. It’s been tried numerous times before if I’m not mistaken. What’s your point?
“YES. That’s the DEFINITION of discrimination. UNEQUAL application of a law based on who you are.”
And that is exactly what is happening to gays and lesbians - the laws unequally dictate who they can and can’t marry based on the sex of their chosen partner. Glad you agree.
“No. All laws limit choices. Does anyone have a choice not to follow any law, just because they don’t want to? The definition of discrimination is applying a law differentially. According to your definition, anyone can break the law and claim discrimination if he/she simply “wanted” to. Gosh, if I don’t want to follow drunk driving laws and get stopped for weaving after a New Year’s party, can I claim discrimination against party-goers, or people who weave while driving, or alcoholics, or late-night sleepy drivers? If I don’t want to pay taxes, can I claim discrimination and get off the hook? Think that will work?”
So what you’re saying is that you’re okay with laws preventing people from marrying the person of their choice - unless they choose the right kind of person. Nope. That doesn’t sound like discrimination at all.
“Look, there are lots of reasons to argue for or against same-sex marriage. Discrimination just isn’t one of them.”
I, and many others disagree.
Not when it involves the government redefining a religious practice.”
Who has said anything about redefining anyone’s religious practices? Now you’re really making things up. Granting a gay couple the right to be married and have the same benefits as a heterosexual couple is a civil matter, not a religious one. If your religion doesn’t like it, they don’t have to recognize the marriage. That simply reflects on the religion. No one’s civil benefits should be infringed because of the religious views of someone else, which is exactly what you are advocating.
“Seriously, it’s not about “letting a gay couple marry”, it’s about the government redefining the religious practice of “holy marriage” to include same-sex marriage.”
First of all, you are adding the word “holy” to it inappropriately. The civil benefits that are at issue are conveyed by the government, not the church. And if the government wants to redefine it to extend the same benefits to its citizens equally, then that is a civil matter, not a religious one. Religion does not own the word marriage, nor do they get to dictate who gets to be married and who doesn’t. Marriage started out in this country as a civil matter. Religion didn’t get involved until much later.
“That’s not for anyone else to decide. And that IS the law.”
Funny how you’re all opposed to government interference in religion, but it’s perfectly okay for religion to interfere with government. There’s a word for that…
Any comment on all the ways that civil unions are not equal to marriage? Or are you going to let that drop since your point got rather eviscerated?
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 10:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Skipp: “Scott, would a small business owner be able to provide benefits to only one type of marriage or would that owner’s religious freedoms be infringed on by requiring him/her to provide the same benefits to all types of marriages?”
It seems to me that the only way it could work is if the protections were extended the same way they are for race, gender, age and so on. If same sex marriage were considered to be the same as the other non-discrimination factors, then he would have to provide the benefits. Like I said to JMH, someone else’s status does not constitute an infringement on anyone’s religious rights. And if he were a business owner, he would have to comply with the relevant laws regarding who is entitled to what.
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 10:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH said, “What many religious folks are concerned about with the gay marriage issue is the slow erosion of Religious Freedom.”
Scott said, “Not being allowed to impose your religious values on others is not an erosion of religious freedom..”
But being forced to act against your religious values is:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=34262
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 10:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “But being forced to act against your religious values is:”
Would it be okay with you if the doctor has claimed that his religious beliefs prevented him from doing an insemination on a black woman?
Religious beliefs do not justify discrimination. That is what happened in the case you cited - the doctor discriminated against the lesbian because of his religious beliefs. That you would defend this action says a lot, JMH.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 11:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH said “…the DEFINITION of discrimination. UNEQUAL application of a law based on who you are.”
Scott says, “And that is exactly what is happening to gays and lesbians - the laws unequally dictate who they can and can’t marry based on the sex of their chosen partner. Glad you agree.”
Sorry, but “based on who you are” is obviously not the same as “based on the sex of their chosen partner”. The law is based on the sex of the partner only in relation to their own sex. The law applies equally to both men and women, homosexuals and heterosexuals, regardless of sexual behavior. The law is based on the “sameness” - not the sex of one or the other in isolation. If you insist, we can look at it individually and still see that the law applies EQUALLY to male heterosexuals, female heterosexuals, gay males and lesbian females. The law is blind to sexual orientation. Neither a homosexual nor a heterosexual can marry a person of the same sex. There is no test or question of sexual orientation. The law is applied equally to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.
JMH said: “According to your logic then, anyone who breaks any law could claim discrimination. And anyone who doesn’t “want” to follow a law could claim discrimination.”
Scott said, “Sure they can. It’s been tried numerous times before if I’m not mistaken. What’s your point?”
That we have the Rule of Law in this country and that laws that apply to everyone are simply not discriminatory. They’re just laws that apply to everyone. Just because someone doesn’t want to follow a law, doesn’t make the law discriminatory. We could get into a discussion about the effects of false claims of discrimination on our judicial system and the Rule of Law, but that’s a different conversation.
You can redefine the concept and be the victor in your own mind all you want, but it doesn’t change the facts. Knock yourself out.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 12:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Sorry, but “based on who you are” is obviously not the same as “based on the sex of their chosen partner”.”
It is when the sex of their chosen partner is a direct result of who they are.
“The law is based on the sex of the partner only in relation to their own sex. The law applies equally to both men and women, homosexuals and heterosexuals, regardless of sexual behavior. The law is based on the “sameness” - not the sex of one or the other in isolation. If you insist, we can look at it individually and still see that the law applies EQUALLY to male heterosexuals, female heterosexuals, gay males and lesbian females. The law is blind to sexual orientation. Neither a homosexual nor a heterosexual can marry a person of the same sex. There is no test or question of sexual orientation. The law is applied equally to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.”
Right. But if you have the misfortune to be homosexual, you’re out of luck. As I said before, the Jim Crow laws applied to blacks and whites as well. Did that make them non-discriminatory?
“That we have the Rule of Law in this country and that laws that apply to everyone are simply not discriminatory. They’re just laws that apply to everyone. Just because someone doesn’t want to follow a law, doesn’t make the law discriminatory.”
You really are in your own little world, aren’t you?
“We could get into a discussion about the effects of false claims of discrimination on our judicial system and the Rule of Law, but that’s a different conversation.”
A law that says you can choose anyone you want as long as they are of the opposite sex is discriminatory towards those who have no desire for people of the opposite sex, regardless of whether it applies to everyone or not. Laws in the US apply to all citizens anyway. Does that mean it is impossible for a US law to be discriminatory? History does not support you on that.
“You can redefine the concept and be the victor in your own mind all you want, but it doesn’t change the facts. Knock yourself out.”
And you can keep defending discrimination all you want. I hope you can sleep at night knowing you are contributing to the problem. Somehow, I doubt it bothers you in the slightest.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 12:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH said, “Of course - the difference is only if those beliefs and values are conservative. Liberals never have a problem …..“imposing their beliefs” (about) abortions, gay marriage,….on the whole country.”
Scott said, “Since each person should have the right to choose for themselves whether they wish to participate in those actions, you are correct.”
And Scott said, “No one is saying that an individual cannot have faith in the deity of their choice, or act on that faith as an individual.”
Now Scott says, “Religious beliefs do not justify discrimination. That is what happened in the case you cited - the doctor discriminated against the lesbian because of his religious beliefs. That you would defend this action says a lot, JMH.”
All it says is that I believe in my First Amendment rights to voice my opinion even if you disagree. And that I believe in the religious freedom of individuals not to be coerced by the government to perform actions that are counter to their religious beliefs. In this case the government disallowed that an individual can act according to their faith, or “not participate” in an action that is counter to their religious beliefs.
The fact that you agree that the government can condemn someone for acting on their faith and that it’s OK for the government to coerce someone to act against their faith says that you don’t actually believe what you yourself have said in yet another one of your never-ending, sounds-good, sound-byte arguments. I think that’s better known as hypocrisy.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 1:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “All it says is that I believe in my First Amendment rights to voice my opinion even if you disagree. And that I believe in the religious freedom of individuals not to be coerced by the government to perform actions that are counter to their religious beliefs.”
Ever heard the old saying that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins? If someone’s religious beliefs have an adverse effect on someone else, you better believe the government has the right to “coerce” someone into doing something (or not doing something) counter to their beliefs. Sorry, that’s how it works.
“In this case the government disallowed that an individual can act according to their faith, or “not participate” in an action that is counter to their religious beliefs.”
Because that action (or lack of action) was detrimental to someone else. Why is that so hard to understand?
“The fact that you agree that the government can condemn someone for acting on their faith and that it’s OK for the government to coerce someone to act against their faith says that you don’t actually believe what you yourself have said in yet another one of your never-ending, sounds-good, sound-byte arguments. I think that’s better known as hypocrisy.”
If you weren’t ignoring the fact that the case involved the religious beliefs being detrimental to someone else, you would have a point. Unfortunately, since there is (as usual) more to the issue than what you care to pay attention to, you are wrong. Again.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 1:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH once again fails to acknowledge that “faith” or religious belief is a personal choice and that is where it should remain. Unfortunately, it being all many know, or have known (religion)they are not able to make that distinction. They cannot separate religion from secular. They are the type of individuals which Frederich Nietzche was referring to when he stated that there is never any shortage of those who would tell others what to do. They are those individuals who believe that they have somehow found some “ultimate truth” and if we but follow them (blindly I might add) that they will somehow lead us to some utopia. That such never works is well documented in history, even when it was religion or religious organizations left in charge. Some of us would call their approach to be the epitome of arrogance.
In modern times we have had a classic example of this in the case of pedophelia within the Catholic church. Analyze that, and what you may very well find is that, at the core of it, and in their reaction to it, those in the clergy and particularly in the hierarchy were motivated more by pride than they were in defending the helpless.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 3:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oliver said, “Marriage is a civic institution, not merely a religious one, which is the germane point. Recognizing that adults–regardless of their gender, gender identification, or orientation–have the same equal protection under the law as per how the law (i.e. civic institutions) treat them is a fundamental precept of American ideal, even if those ideals take some time to realize. Many people argued against interracial marriage, merely a few decades ago, based on their religious beliefs.”
I don’t disagree at all except that, as far as I know, there was never any official Church Doctrine (the Vatican) that prohibited inter-racial marriage. I’m not one to deny that people of all faiths have abused their religion, down through the ages, to promote various political agendas. But we also can’t forget that this country was also born on the American ideal of freedom from oppression of religious practice.
Anyway, one can also say that, for religious people, the institution of marriage is considered a “holy sacrament” and governed not merely by the civic laws that have, in fact, been largely derived from religious traditions. This represents an inescapable head on crash between age-old and deeply held religious beliefs and gay rights.
To develop a set of laws around the issues of purely CIVIL rights, i.e. Civil Unions, distinct from religious marriage laws, solves (to some extent) the problem of government intrusion into religious practice.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH said, “In this case the government disallowed that an individual can act according to their faith, or “not participate” in an action that is counter to their religious beliefs.”
Scott said, “Because that action (or lack of action) was detrimental to someone else.”
The physician referred her to another physician and she was artificially inseminated and became pregnant. Last I checked, the Constitution doesn’t guarantee “freedom from referrals”. In the clash between two sets of rights, some compromises have to be made. But this court case says that her rights not to go to a different doctor trump the the Doctor’s First Amendment rights to act according to his religious beliefs. I’m sure that doesn’t bother you - so we should just agree to disagree.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 4:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says, “Marriage started out in this country as a civil matter. Religion didn’t get involved until much later.”
But in #16 Scott said, “The tradition is religiously based”
And the correct answer is……… whatever suits Scott’s secular argument at the time.
Scott says, “Any comment on all the ways that civil unions are not equal to marriage?”
Put as much energy into all the ways CIVIL unions could provide equal CIVIL rights as you do trying to impose your own beliefs and preaching against religious beliefs about marriage and everything will be peachy.
‘Nuff said - I’m done.
Oh… just a reminder:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 4:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “The physician referred her to another physician and she was artificially inseminated and became pregnant. Last I checked, the Constitution doesn’t guarantee “freedom from referrals”. In the clash between two sets of rights, some compromises have to be made. But this court case says that her rights not to go to a different doctor trump the the Doctor’s First Amendment rights to act according to his religious beliefs. I’m sure that doesn’t bother you - so we should just agree to disagree.”
Way to misrepresent the situation. The issue stemmed from the doctor in question being the only one qualified to perform the procedure, and refusing to do it. Therefore, her “rights not to go to another doctor” are irrlelvant to the case BECAUSE THERE WAS NO OTHER DOCTOR!
“Scott says, “Marriage started out in this country as a civil matter. Religion didn’t get involved until much later.”
But in #16 Scott said, “The tradition is religiously based”
And the correct answer is……… whatever suits Scott’s secular argument at the time.”
Unless marriage started out as a secular agreement which became more religiously affiliated over time, which is the actual situation. Seriously, you’re grasping at straws now.
“Put as much energy into all the ways CIVIL unions could provide equal CIVIL rights as you do trying to impose your own beliefs and preaching against religious beliefs about marriage and everything will be peachy.”
In other words, no. Just make an assertion and run away when it’s shown to be wrong. Again.
“‘Nuff said - I’m done.”
Somehow, I doubt that.
“Oh… just a reminder:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Unless that free exercise violates someone else’s rights. Funny how you never fail to forget that part.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 5:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says, The issue stemmed from the doctor in question being the only one qualified to perform the procedure, and refusing to do it. Therefore, her “rights not to go to another doctor” are irrlelvant to the case BECAUSE THERE WAS NO OTHER DOCTOR!”
BULL - read the article.
“Dr. Douglas Fenton, shared her religious objection to performing IUI for an unmarried woman, but that EITHER OF TWO OTHER NORTH COAST PHYSICIANS, Dr. Charles Stoopack and Dr. Ross Langley, COULD DO THE PROCEDURE for Benitez.
….
Dr. Fenton THEN REFERRED BENITEZ TO A PHYSICIAN OUTSIDE NORTH COAST’S MEDICAL PRACTICE, Dr. Michael Kettle.
“The IUI performed by Dr. Kettle did not result in a pregnancy. Benitez was unable to conceive until June 2001, when Dr. Kettle PERFORMED IN VITRO FERTILIZATION,” said the court.”
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 6:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: BULL - read the article.”
Read it yourself. The Dr. Kettle was the only one licensed to prepare fresh sperm and he refused to perform the procedure.
“Dr. Douglas Fenton, shared her religious objection to performing IUI for an unmarried woman, but that EITHER OF TWO OTHER NORTH COAST PHYSICIANS, Dr. Charles Stoopack and Dr. Ross Langley, COULD DO THE PROCEDURE for Benitez.”
That is not the procedure that was the basis for the lawsuit.
“Dr. Fenton THEN REFERRED BENITEZ TO A PHYSICIAN OUTSIDE NORTH COAST’S MEDICAL PRACTICE, Dr. Michael Kettle.”
So it’s all okay as long as eventually she got the procedure? Sorry, JMH. It doesn’t work that way. If a taxicab driver refuses to drive me to work because of his religious beliefs, it doesn’t matter if I get to work eventually. The refusal of services is the point, and that happened in this case no matter how you try to spin it.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 6:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That should be Dr. Fenton in the first paragraph. Dr. Kettle was the one who eventually performed the procedure. Dr. Fenton is the one who refused.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 6:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH “But we also can’t forget that this country was also born on the American ideal of freedom from oppression of religious practice.”
This is where the theists logic does not permit the respect of personal choice. The reality is that neither is it permittend to practice one’s religion upon another, directly or indirectly, not if one respects the freedom of conscience of each and every individual, a fundamentally personal right tied to the individual and nothing else.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 7:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH said, “Last I checked, the Constitution doesn’t guarantee “freedom from referrals”. In the clash between two sets of rights, some compromises have to be made. But this court case says that her rights not to go to a different doctor trump the the Doctor’s First Amendment rights to act according to his religious beliefs. I’m sure that doesn’t bother you - so we should just agree to disagree.
But agreeing to disagree isn’t good enough, so Scott screams, “….her “rights not to go to another doctor” are irrlelvant to the case BECAUSE THERE WAS NO OTHER DOCTOR!”
But when proven wrong about that, he says, “The refusal of services is the point,…”
Keep it up Scott. You’re treading water, your intolerance is showing, and all I have to do is keep cutt’n & past’n your own stuff.
Argue with RL. He said, “…THE FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE OF EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL, a fundamentally personal right tied to the individual and nothing else.”
Carry on boys……
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 7:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “But agreeing to disagree isn’t good enough, so Scott screams, “….her “rights not to go to another doctor” are irrlelvant to the case BECAUSE THERE WAS NO OTHER DOCTOR!”
But when proven wrong about that, he says, “The refusal of services is the point,…”
It always was the point, and the capitals were for emphasis, not shouting.
“Keep it up Scott. You’re treading water, your intolerance is showing, and all I have to do is keep cutt’n & past’n your own stuff.”
You’re the one defending discrimination, and you have the gall to accuse me of intolerance? You are advocating keeping people with differing sexual preferences from marrying each other, and I’m intolerant? Ha.
“Argue with RL. He said, “…THE FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE OF EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL, a fundamentally personal right tied to the individual and nothing else.”
In your case, it’s obviously “freedom FROM conscience”. I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night if I were pushing to keep gays and lesbians in their place the way you have. But that’s just me.
Posted November 9th, 2009 at 8:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: ““Argue with RL. He said, “…THE FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE OF EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL, a fundamentally personal right tied to the individual and nothing else.”
Actually arguments are totally non-productive which is why some individuals are best left ignored, no matter what they say or post. Argumentation, on the other hand, is something else as it is engaged in by individuals with open minds, not those who begin or end any discussion with what we often hear, although indirectly; “You won’t change my mind.” It is definitely a product of a lack of intellectual curiosity on the part of many.
A good indicator of that is that even when attempting to discuss general ideas of political, economic or social theory some will attempt to insert into the discourse their personal experiences, as if those were of any great import except to that indivdidual. Also found is that no matter what is being discussed “one on one” even, we are frequently asked “What’s your job?” or “What was your job?” It is probably because that is the only existence most individuals really have and can conceive or comprehend nothing beyond that narrow field of existence. For all practical purposes, they have been and are their occupations. That is how they define themselves and is really their sole identity.
For those who question my observation, note carefully what not only the other person is saying, but what you yourself are saying during any conversation or other interaction. Defending something? Why is that? Is it only because such is the field you do or have worked in? If so, that indicates not a rebuttal of the other individual’s point buty your own occupation.
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 7:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It occurred to me this morning that one of JMH’s main objections to same sex marriage is entirely irrelevant.
She claimed that studies have shown that children raised in same sex environments were not as well adjusted or able to function in society.
Even if this is true, which I doubt, it has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage because marital status does not prevent gays and lesbians from raising children! This should have been obvious from the start, because otherwise there would have been no children on which to base these alleged studies.
So, since the laws that prevent gays from marrying do not prevent them from raising children, JMH’s objection that the marriage ban somehow protects society from these maladjusted children is entirely without merit.
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 8:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“we are frequently asked “What’s your job?” or “What was your job?” It is probably because that is the only existence most individuals really have and can conceive or comprehend nothing beyond that narrow field of existence. For all practical purposes, they have been and are their occupations. That is how they define themselves and is really their sole identity.”
Interesting observation, RL, and, I suspect, quite true. The rest of their identity, in many cases, is transferred to some TV character, sports icon, or media celebrity so they can live an actual life vicariously.
Posted November 11th, 2009 at 12:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “I’ve never met anyone who based non-acceptance of homosexuality on anything but religious belief.”
RL: “It is a “freedom of conscience” and one that goes to the very core of what this country is all about.”
Scott: “I realize that the majority of the population is against it. That doesn’t matter. If I cared what the majority thought I wouldn’t be an atheist.”
RL: ” ‘You won’t change my mind.’ It is definitely a product of a lack of intellectual curiosity”
Posted November 11th, 2009 at 1:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott said, “It occurred to me this morning that one of JMH’s main objections to same sex marriage is entirely irrelevant.
She claimed that studies have shown that children raised in same sex environments were not as well adjusted or able to function in society.”
No, I said, “And as much as the Left would like to wipe out gender differences, there ARE ‘hard-wired’ differences between men and women, and maternal and paternal child-rearing. Children need both - and it’s quite well established that children raised by two biological parents do better on every measure of development and in later life than children raised by single Moms (only a female role model), or single Dads (only a male role model), or step-families.”
Scott said, “So, since the laws that prevent gays from marrying do not prevent them from raising children, JMH’s objection that the marriage ban somehow protects society from these maladjusted children is entirely without merit.”
No, I was merely explaining the purpose of existing marriage laws:
“In reality, marriage laws RESTRICT individual property rights of a man and a woman and, historically, help ensure the rights of biological children to be cared for and/or supported by their biological Mother and biological Father.”
Posted November 11th, 2009 at 7:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH:
Scott: “I’ve never met anyone who based non-acceptance of homosexuality on anything but religious belief.”
RL: “It is a “freedom of conscience” and one that goes to the very core of what this country is all about.”
Scott: “I realize that the majority of the population is against it. That doesn’t matter. If I cared what the majority thought I wouldn’t be an atheist.”
RL: ” ‘You won’t change my mind.’ It is definitely a product of a lack of intellectual curiosity”
You seem to be under the impression that these statements are contradictory. They aren’t, but if it tickles you to think so, go right ahead. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
“No, I said, “And as much as the Left would like to wipe out gender differences, there ARE ‘hard-wired’ differences between men and women, and maternal and paternal child-rearing. Children need both - and it’s quite well established that children raised by two biological parents do better on every measure of development and in later life than children raised by single Moms (only a female role model), or single Dads (only a male role model), or step-families.”
And you apparently missed the point that this is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage. Unless you are proposing new laws that prevent homosexuals from raising children? I’m sure you wouldn’t consider that to be discriminatory either, since it would apply to everyone. It would affect only gays and lesbians, but it would apply to everyone, and that makes it okay, right?
“No, I was merely explaining the purpose of existing marriage laws:
“In reality, marriage laws RESTRICT individual property rights of a man and a woman and, historically, help ensure the rights of biological children to be cared for and/or supported by their biological Mother and biological Father.”
And how is that relevant to the point that marriage does convey benefits such as joint tax returns, immigration sponsorship, beneficiary status and so on, as I pointed out earlier and you almost completely ignored. And since the marriage laws do not prevent gays from raising children, they seen to be rather ineffective at making sure children are raised by biological parents. Are you proposing that the laws make adoption illegal so the children can be raised by their biological families no matter what? That would contradict your oft-repeated abortion position.
Face it JMH. The marriage laws do not do what you claim they do, and they are discriminatory against homosexuals.
Posted November 12th, 2009 at 11:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott said, “Are you proposing that the laws make adoption illegal so the children can be raised by their biological families no matter what?”
Of course not, Scott.
Scott says, “You’re the one defending discrimination,….
No, what I’m defending is the concept of marriage as between one man and one woman, which is not an issue of discrimination. You say that redefining the word marriage through legislation is a matter of “principle”. As a matter of principle, words have meaning and the word marriage refers to both a religious and civil CONCEPT. Redefining the word redefines the concept, which can’t help but universally IMPOSE that concept.
As I’ve said before: the Institution of Marriage is ALSO considered a “holy sacrament” and is governed by age-old Religious Doctrine and beliefs. Many of our marriage laws have been derived from that doctrine, making for a head on crash between religious doctrine and gay marriage “rights”. As I’ve said before, civic/civil rights can and should be conferred through purely non-religious legal mechanisms. It is an insult to African Americans to put gay MARRIAGE on par with Civil Rights (capitalized) because, as YOU said, “they are not enslaved, or anything approximating slavery”.
You said, “And how is that relevant to the point that marriage does convey benefits such as joint tax returns, immigration sponsorship, beneficiary status and so on, as I pointed out earlier and you almost completely ignored.”
Because marriage doesn’t convey those rights. Joint tax returns are governed by tax laws. Immigration sponsorship is governed by the INS. Insurance is governed by insurance laws. Hospital visitation is hospital policy. Those are what need to be changed, not the Institution of Marriage. (yes, capitalized)
For example, my brother lived with me for a while and I couldn’t get him on my health insurance and we sure as heck couldn’t file a joint tax return - unless he became a dependent. That’s just the way it is. Did that make either of us second class citizens? Heck no. In reality, one could question why even married couples without children deserve tax breaks. Or why a parent living with an adult child can’t get an insurance break (unless the parent is also a dependent). Two can live cheaper than one in the first place, so according to your logic, our tax laws and insurance rates discriminate against self-supporting single people! Wah. And there’s really just as much reason to argue that any two people cohabiting for any reason do/don’t deserve special benefits.
“Equality” and “Freedom” are actually two opposing concepts which always need to be kept in balance if everyone is to enjoy both. Like you yourself said, one person’s rights stop where another’s begin. When rights overlap, everyone has to compromise - not just one ’side’ or the other. That all said, you seem to be stuck in concrete thinking and refusing to use your oft-lauded critical thinking to even imagine all aspects of the issue. You will not bend from the idea that sexual preference trumps everything, even though the real issue is CIVIC rights governed by civic laws and policies.
Developing or tweeking laws around purely civic rights as distinct from existing marriage laws that are inextricable entwined with Religious principles, solves the problem of government intrusion into Religion and can provide rights for gay couples without changing the definition of marriage itself.
Posted November 12th, 2009 at 12:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Scott said, “Are you proposing that the laws make adoption illegal so the children can be raised by their biological families no matter what?”
Of course not, Scott.”
Then how are the existing marriage laws supposed to make sure children are raised by their biological parents? Gays and lesbians can adopt and raise children now, without being able to be married. Allowing them the civil benefits associated with marriage will not change that, so this point is irrelevant.
“No, what I’m defending is the concept of marriage as between one man and one woman, which is not an issue of discrimination.”
It is if you are a man who is not attracted to women, or vice versa. but you haven’t understood that point yet, so I doubt you will this time either.
“You say that redefining the word marriage through legislation is a matter of “principle”. As a matter of principle, words have meaning and the word marriage refers to both a religious and civil CONCEPT. Redefining the word redefines the concept, which can’t help but universally IMPOSE that concept.”
You say that like its a bad thing. Again, if churches don’t want to recognize gay marriages, they have that right but to prevent people from getting the civil benefits of the status on the basis of who they choose as a partner is discrimination. Do you agree that it would be discrimination if the laws said they could not marry someone of another race? Why is the sex of the individuals different than their race?
“As I’ve said before: the Institution of Marriage is ALSO considered a “holy sacrament” and is governed by age-old Religious Doctrine and beliefs. Many of our marriage laws have been derived from that doctrine, making for a head on crash between religious doctrine and gay marriage “rights”.”
Demonstrating the lack of compassion and acceptance of the religious doctrines. Do you think this helps your point in some way?
“As I’ve said before, civic/civil rights can and should be conferred through purely non-religious legal mechanisms. It is an insult to African Americans to put gay MARRIAGE on par with Civil Rights (capitalized) because, as YOU said, “they are not enslaved, or anything approximating slavery”.”
They weren’t enslaved in the sixties, either. But they certainly weren’t treated equally, so it seems the analogy is perfectly valid.
“Because marriage doesn’t convey those rights.”
You must be joking.
“Joint tax returns are governed by tax laws.”
Which allow for married couples to file jointly, but not couples in a “civil union.” Discriminatory.
“Immigration sponsorship is governed by the INS.”
Which allows a married individual to sponsor his or her spouse for legal immigration. A civil union does not allow such sponsorship. Discriminatory.
“Insurance is governed by insurance laws.”
Which draw a disctinction between marriange and civil unions. Discriminatory.
“Hospital visitation is hospital policy.”
Which allow a spouse access to the room without question. A person in a civil union must present paperwork proving the relationship before they will consider allowing access. Discriminatory.
“Those are what need to be changed, not the Institution of Marriage. (yes, capitalized)”
It is much easier simply to allow people to marry the person of their choice, regardless of race, religion, creed or gender. Then none of the rest needs to be changed.
“For example, my brother lived with me for a while and I couldn’t get him on my health insurance and we sure as heck couldn’t file a joint tax return - unless he became a dependent.”
Bingo! Why should a gay couple not be allowed to file jointly the same as a married man and woman would be allowed to?
“That’s just the way it is.”
“Separate but Equal” was “just the way it was” for a long time also. Does that make it right? That is the weakest argument you’ve presented yet.
“Did that make either of us second class citizens? Heck no. In reality, one could question why even married couples without children deserve tax breaks. Or why a parent living with an adult child can’t get an insurance break (unless the parent is also a dependent). Two can live cheaper than one in the first place, so according to your logic, our tax laws and insurance rates discriminate against self-supporting single people! Wah. And there’s really just as much reason to argue that any two people cohabiting for any reason do/don’t deserve special benefits.”
Was there a point in there somewhere?
“Equality” and “Freedom” are actually two opposing concepts which always need to be kept in balance if everyone is to enjoy both. Like you yourself said, one person’s rights stop where another’s begin. When rights overlap, everyone has to compromise - not just one ’side’ or the other.”
You are assuming that not allowing gays to be married is a right of the heterosexuals. Once again, I ask how allowing gay couples to get the same benefits that heterosexual couples get compromises anything for anyone else. Are you going to lose something if a gay couple gets to file a joint return? What harm do you suffer if a gay person is allowed to sponsor his spouse for citizenship? In order to compromise, you have to be giving something up and so far you have not demonstrated that non-gays are going to lose anything if gays are treated equally.
“That all said, you seem to be stuck in concrete thinking and refusing to use your oft-lauded critical thinking to even imagine all aspects of the issue.”
Completely wrong. I’ve spent a lot of time reading about this issue and pondering the ramifications. I haven’t come up with any valid reasons for continuing to discriminate against gays in this manner. You certainly haven’t given any valid reasons either.
“You will not bend from the idea that sexual preference trumps everything, even though the real issue is CIVIC rights governed by civic laws and policies.”
Close. I will not bend from the idea that sexual preference is a private matter and should not be the basis for anyone not receiving the same treatment as anyone else. Do you disagree with that?
“Developing or tweeking laws around purely civic rights as distinct from existing marriage laws that are inextricable entwined with Religious principles, solves the problem of government intrusion into Religion and can provide rights for gay couples without changing the definition of marriage itself.”
Religion can define marriage however it wants. Why should the religious definition have anything to do with the civic definition? Marriage is not merely a religious institution, and as I have said many times before, churches are under no obligation to accept these marriages as valid ones. But the whole point is that the religious definition should not impact the civic definition. That is an intrusion of religion into government.
Posted November 12th, 2009 at 5:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says, “Then how are the existing marriage laws supposed to make sure children are raised by their biological parents?”
That’s not what I said. Quite clearly the biological parents aren’t in the picture in adoption cases. And “help ensure” and “make sure” are not the same. But perhaps the word “ensure” was a bit too strong a word so you latched on and missed EVERYTHING ELSE I said previous to it - so just go with “promote” and let go of your “make sure” bone.
You say, “Gays and lesbians can adopt and raise children now, without being able to be married.”
Because adoption laws were able to be changed without changing the definition of Marriage.
I rest my case.
Posted November 12th, 2009 at 5:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “That’s not what I said. Quite clearly the biological parents aren’t in the picture in adoption cases. And “help ensure” and “make sure” are not the same. But perhaps the word “ensure” was a bit too strong a word so you latched on and missed EVERYTHING ELSE I said previous to it - so just go with “promote” and let go of your “make sure” bone.”
If you aren’t talking about adoption cases, which is most if not all of the cases in which gay parents are raising kids, then it has even less to do with gay marriage. Since gay couples have to adopt in order to have kids, which they can do now, then the marital status of that couple has nothing to do with raising kids or redefining marriage. Why did you bring this up in the first place?
“Because adoption laws were able to be changed without changing the definition of Marriage.”
Because marriage is not and never has been a pre-requisite to adopt. Ergo, nothing needed to change.
“I rest my case.”
What case? When did you present a case? All I’ve seen you present were irrelevant tangents, such as “marriage laws are there to protect kids”.
Posted November 12th, 2009 at 7:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry, but it has NOT always been possible for an unmarried person to adopt. That’s just a fact.
And you say: “What case? When did you present a case?”
That’s just you making a fool out of yourself.
Nighty, night
Posted November 12th, 2009 at 8:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Sorry, but it has NOT always been possible for an unmarried person to adopt. That’s just a fact.”
Where did I say an unmarried PERSON? Again, reading things that aren’t there.
“That’s just you making a fool out of yourself.”
You’re the one who hasn’t presented any relevant arguments. Existing marriage laws do not prevent gay couples from raising children, so this whole things has been a big distraction from your complete failure to show that the gay marriage ban has any merit whatsoever. I certainly don’t feel foolish. I’m sure you don’t either, but that’s another story.
And you have a good night too.
Nighty, night
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.