quote: Nope. They're confident in the Constitution. They're not confident in a relative few judges, some of whom have not only invented "constitutional" rights that aren't there, but have also presumed to redefine marriage, contrary to all precedent.
Just because you disagree with the judges does not mean that their considerations are wrong. I have disagreed with Supreme Court decisions also but they do try very hard to use the power that is given to them very carefully indeed in addressing the cases that come before them. The process of choosing them is all political – proposed by the incumbent president – and interrogated by congress. Once invested, they are not required to follow a party line to attempt to follow purely judicial principles. They “invent” nothing – they have to deal with the constitution as it is written, not as some people would write it. Many decisions have been “contrary to all precedent” – the Dredd Scott case for example set a precedent about slavery – do you think that should still be followed just because it set a precedent?
quote:Diabolical? The "religious reich?" Who is being hateful and bigoted?
I think that Garth did a good explanation on that one. Maybe sometimes language can be heated but when you see some of the language that is used against gays by some you should hopefully understand.
quote:Whether or not an amendment passes, attempting to amend the constitution is a right and the processes by which the constitution may be amended are clearly spelled out in the constitution. It's pretty damn hypocritical to condemn people for exercising a clear, incontrovertible, constitutionally provided right, while claiming to be seeking a "right" that has never existed in any State or the USA, from the earliest of colonial times forward. It's also hypocritical to condemn as bigots people who disagree that gay "marriage" is a right, when that "right" does not exist in your country either. Damn British bigots! (Previous three words not serious.)
Understandings of rights evolve, they are not fixed by one moment in time. I do not condemn people as bigots simply for disagreeing but for their arguments and their language. We have no written constitution nor bill or rights over here except those granted by the monarch through act of parliament and yet we seem to have a better understanding of rights sometimes than those have something in more tangible form. Of course there is a proposed European Constitution which will, when established have precedence over domestic law and some countries in Europe do have gay marriage already.
quote: More of the same. This is an effort to constitutionally protect the definition of marriage to be the same as it has always been in the USA, from the earliest colonial times and even in the British law from which the definition derived before that. AND, Trefor, the definition they seek to write into the constitution is the same definition that your country uses.
Our country has an "understanding", not a definition. However it is at least prepared to make a legal allowance for gay relationships that your proposed amendment does not. Effectively it will be marriage in all but name and will give full legal protections and recognition.
quote: Cronkite is a liar! They're not seeking to criminalize individual behavior. They're not seeking to dictate anything to churches. If the amendment passes, churches can still perform same-sex marriages all they want, just as they can now. Those church marriages will not be recognized as civil marriages, just as they are not now, and have never been. (AND, BTW, Trefor, as they are not now and have never been in your country, either.)
No church has to recognise a civil marriage religiously. But then again the state does not have to recognise a religious marriage without the civil element. In most countries in Europe two ceremonies are actually required – the civil one first legitimises the marriage in the eyes of the state and that is the only one which does. Grace Kelly was married to Prince Rainier in a civil marriage the day before the big “show” that was the religious one. Here we are civilised enough to allow one ceremony providing a legitimate registrar is present to witness and register the marriage. The Church of England clergy act as civil registrars for example for church marriages. Divorce is always a civil matter. If Roman Catholics divorce that does not mean that they are free to marry again in the eyes of their church who may refuse remarriage and also the sacraments to those who remarry, even civilly, without going through the church’s own annulment process.
They only decided against "marriage" because they felt the time was not yet quite right to use the term but the civil arrangements are akin to marriage in all but name. They could be converted to marriages without the need for another ceremony. There is a reactionary element in our unelected House of Lords wgho fight tooth and nail against any improvement in matters like this.
zixar:
quote:I thought the piece on the amendments was amusing--the author claims none were discriminatory, but the 26th Amendment CLEARLY and BLATANTLY DISCRIMINATES against all civic-minded, rational seventeen-year olds, and cruelly denies them the sovereign franchise. Fascist bastards! "Oh, sure, we can go out and kill ourselves in automobiles, but we can't vote to raise the speed limit? Bloody ageist goosesteppers!"
But the amendment still EXTENDED rights by making the franchise available to those who had previously been denied it. It was progress and not regress. In this country we are already seeing the consideration of voting being extended to 16 year olds, less discrimination again. As has been pointed out, only Prohibition has actually denied rights and that was repealed. It’s a poor example as discrimination that you cite.
quote:Let's have a leek for Trefor! Up the Welsh!
Hmm, I could get Freudian but I will avoid the temptation! ;)-->
quote:Let's say a hypothetical British subject emigrates to the US, but he prefers to drive on the left side of the road. Why should he be penalized? It's how he's driven all his adult life! Why should he be forced to do something that feels unnatural to him? Does the Constitution guarantee him a set of left-side roads? Of course not. The existing roads are adequate for what they're designed to do. If someone doesn't like the way they're laid out, he can either learn to drive on the right, hire a driver, or abstain from road travel altogether.
Another poor example and yet another blatant example of where you Americans get it things SO wrong! :D--> It is a uniform custom in the country and is to prevent accidents. It is nothing to do with sexuality, race, age, or religion or gender. Adjustment to that custom is possible just as you guys have to adjust to the correct way of doing things when you drive over here.
chwester:
Your understanding of Sodom is so easily demolishable as your understanding of judgement. For you God is a God of hate who throws childish hissy fits when he does not get his own way. Like Garth, if I believed in your God, I too would have to be an atheist.
dmiller:
Well I do know some X-rated Welsh but that wasn’t some of it! :o-->
mr p-Mosh
Cac is the same in Welsh so I can translate that much! Ceud Mile F?te!
Jonny:
It was only because it removed the hurt from the word and was turned into a word of affirmation. Not everyone likes it although it doesn’t bother me - it’s not a word I would chose to describe myself though.
quote: Yeah, but that is meant for regular people not gays!
You saying gays are constipated? -->
mj:
The people are the people, all the people not just the majority of the people. Majorities can be tyrannical and persecuting as history has shown over and over again.
Oh, how clever! But it is only five senses logic...
And yeah, I was talkin to you and I guess Garth and anyone else who thinks that's cute and "right on"...
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord"
Which includes adherence to His statutes, which a governmental stamp of approval on gay marriages is not. And, we are not going to agree on this one and that is the very bottom line...Sorry
Yeah yeah, I know. I am a narrow minded homophobe bigot I guess...
Garth's list calls to mind something that I and others have requested, but no one has yet offered.
Can anyone straightforwardly state what changes you think should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships, and offer a reasonable argument to support your position?
I'm not asking for a repeat of the "equal rights" mantra. Homosexuals currently have exactly the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. I'm not asking for complaints about religion. They're irrelevant. Civil marriage is not a religious institution.
Marriage exists as a civil institution because society views it as a preferred state, worthy of special legal status because of its benefit to society. Same-sex domestic relationships, whether formalized by a ceremony or not, are already legal. They simply aren't recognized by the state as civil marriages. If you think they should be, then offer some reasons, particularly benefits to society.
Along with reasons you may offer to support your position, you will need to consider possible consequences. If same-sex marriages are to be adopted, should that include brother-brother or father-son marriages. If not, why not. If so, should brother-sister, mother-son, or father-daughter marriages also be adopted? Again, if not, why not.
So far, not one person advocating same-sex marriage has covered any of this.
Uhhh, yes it has been covered. I believe the phrase 'equal protection under the law' (in relation to marital laws in this case) was used at least twice on my account.
And how many laws and legal setups that involve equal protection under the law are set up with the particular purpose of its benefit to society, outside of the obvious benefit of, why looky, here's that phrase again, 'equal protection under the law'?
And since your usual brother-sister, mother-son, father-daughter, brother-brother, father-son relationships aren't involving marriages, that is more or less a moot point. And for those particular relationships that do involve intimate relations, biological and familial reasons that have clearly shown how destructive those kinds of relationships are have been known for many years.
And since I know where you're going with this, may I point out that the same kind of destructive results have failed to be clearly shown in gay relationships. (And no, you may not use the AIDS argument, as that has never been shown to be directly, or indirectly even, a result of homosexuality. Sorry!) The same kind of vis-a-vis comparison fails with the multiple-wives and -husbands relationships to the gays as well. Of course, there are those who would try to show that because they had polygamy in the Bible, that that should be legalized also. But I'll leave that dollar for another day.
Evidently since homosexuality has been amongst us for thousands of years, AND since more and more scientific data is illustrating that homosexuality is more than just a 'flash in the pan', 'Hey! I think that I'll just turn gay today!', 'this is just one of them thar special rights kind of relationships' arrangements, but is showing to be a real and naturally based kind of relationship that is part of the human species, frankly folks, we are going to have to accept that inevitable conclusion and have the law do likewise.
I mean, look at all the slave owners/racial bigots who had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 19th/20th centuries in realizing that blacks weren't biologically 3/5ths of a person, but are full human beings. ... under the law!
Does this help answer your question?
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
quote: "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord"
Which includes adherence to His statutes, which a governmental stamp of approval on gay marriages is not. And, we are not going to agree on this one and that is the very bottom line...Sorry
His “statutes” as you call them are largely a matter of interpretation. I don’t see adherence to what some see as his “statutes” on divorce or on killing, or on how some people treat each other. People can be very selective as to what they agree or disagree with God about.
Long Gone:
quote:Marriage exists as a civil institution because society views it as a preferred state, worthy of special legal status because of its benefit to society. Same-sex domestic relationships, whether formalized by a ceremony or not, are already legal. They simply aren't recognized by the state as civil marriages. If you think they should be, then offer some reasons, particularly benefits to society.
The rehash of the same old illogical argument regarding the right to marry the opposite sex. It does not address the question in hand about the right to marry the same sex. When it comes to prohibitions, the onus should be on those who support the prohibition to clearly demonstrate WHY it should be prohibited, after all in a court a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Arguments on the basis of tradition or reproduction have already been demonstrated to be flawed. Garth has pointed out that equal protection is not a matter of something have to justify itself to others. It should be the automatic default when there are no good valid solid and obvious reasons why it should be otherwise.
quote:Along with reasons you may offer to support your position, you will need to consider possible consequences. If same-sex marriages are to be adopted, should that include brother-brother or father-son marriages. If not, why not. If so, should brother-sister, mother-son, or father-daughter marriages also be adopted? Again, if not, why not.
Such marriages by western standards, would be no more acceptable than brother-sister or father-daughter marriages. In other societies these have been a traditional practice despite the genetic problems created by inbreeding. Obviously in a same sex situation there would be no danger of this but I cannot foresee many situations where such people would wish to take this up to any major degree. If you were to rule that same sex marriage could only be allowed if the provision was equally applied to such examples I would make no objection for the sake of the vast majority of unrelated people who would benefit. It is not something, I hasten to add, that I would be into myself.
I suspect, however, that similar kinship exclusions would be applied as they are to heterosexual marriage.
quote:That's easy: loving a person. Baby-producin' straight couples are important, DAD, and nothing about allowing gay people to get married takes anything away from married, heterosexual baby producers. And no one is suggesting that all people enter into gay marriages, ya dope. Even if all the gay people on earth got married tomorrow—and it bears keeping in mind that not all gay people want to get married, could find someone to marry, or would be willing to leave the priesthood in order to marry—there would still be plenty of heteros out there populating the hell out of the place.
But marriage, as currently practiced by heterosexuals, is not about making babies. A modern marriage is whatever two straight people want it to be. It can last a lifetime, it can last an afternoon. It can be sexually exclusive, it can be open. It can be sacred (church, family, priest), or it can be profane (Vegas, strangers, Elvis). The wife can "joyfully submit" to the husband, as Southern Baptist women are encouraged to do, or the husband and wife can be equals. (Or, as in the case of my friends Zac and Megan, the husband can joyfully submit to the wife.) And they can make little smooshes of themselves, or they can be childless. What makes them married—in their own eyes, and in the eyes of the state—is their love and commitment to each other.
Older straight people get married, as do infertile straight people—even straight people who are in prison for life can marry. Why should loving, committed gay couples be held to a different standard on marriage? Why does fertility only matter when it comes time to deny gay people the right to marry?
quote:Governor Says Law Permitting Gay Marriage Would Be 'Fine'
Schwarzenegger also tells 'Tonight Show' host that he opposes Bush's proposed amendment.
By Joe Mathews, Peter Nicholas and Nancy Vogel, Times Staff Writers
Los Angeles Times
March 2, 2004
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said on national television Monday night that it would be "fine with me" if state law were changed to permit same-sex marriages.
In an interview with Jay Leno on NBC's "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," Schwarzenegger also strongly rejected President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. "I think those issues should be left to the state, so I have no use for a constitutional amendment or change in that at all," he said.
The governor reiterated his opposition to the decision by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, saying city officials should abide by the state law.
But when Leno asked, "Would you have any problem if they changed the law?" the governor replied: "No, I don't have a problem. Let the court decide. Let the people decide."
After noting that voters had approved Proposition 22 in recent years to limit marriage to a man and a woman, Schwarzenegger indicated he was open at least to an initiative to legalize same-sex marriage.
"If the people change their minds and they want to overrule that, that's fine with me."
The author of Proposition 22, Sen. William "Pete" Knight (R-Palmdale) said he was surprised at Schwarzenegger's comments and disappointed by the governor's overall handling of the gay marriage issue.
If Schwarzenegger announced support for gay marriage legislation, it would pass, Knight added.
"If he says he'll sign it," said Knight, "it'll whistle through there."
Former Gov. Gray Davis, who has socialized with Schwarzenegger in recent weeks, made a surprise appearance on Monday's show, and the two exchanged a few quips.
The former movie star said he had been advising Davis about a possible acting career.
"He's helped me a lot with acting, particularly with my pronunciation," Davis said.-
Schwarzenegger's interview with Leno gave the first indication that the governor is not opposed to gay marriage at a moral level, and that if Californians wanted to change the law, he would not be an obstacle.
When asked, Schwarzenegger has spoken in favor of gay rights since his days as a bodybuilder in the 1970s. He has also expressed support for California's existing domestic partnership law. But as governor he had largely sidestepped questions about the fairness of barring same-sex couples from marrying.
His only previous statement, during a recall campaign interview with talk show host Sean Hannity, appeared to be a malapropism: "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman."
Asked last week if he had voted for Proposition 22 when it was on the ballot in 2000, the governor said: "I'll be honest with you. I can't remember."
In the past two weeks, Schwarzenegger has staked out the position that what is chiefly offensive to him about the marriages in San Francisco is the violation of law.
"He sees this primarily as a matter of the rule of law," his communications director, Rob Stutzman, said in an interview last week.
Asked Monday night about Schwarzenegger's statement on Leno, Stutzman said: "I think the governor's words speak for themselves."
The stance hews closely to the governor's position on most controversial issues. As the self-proclaimed "People's Governor," he has said he wants to follow the wishes of the public as expressed at the ballot box.
But his comments were a notable departure in tone for the governor. Over the past two weeks, Schwarzenegger has suggested that San Francisco's granting of licenses was a threat to "civil order." On Feb. 22, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," he said of the scene in San Francisco, "We see riots and we see protests and we see people clashing. The next thing we know is there are injured or dead people, and we don't want to have that." San Francisco authorities disputed that, saying there have been no riots connected to the issue.
On the same show, he added: "We cannot have, all of a sudden now, mayors go and hand out licenses for various different things. If it is — you know, in San Francisco, it's the license for marriage of same sex. Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons. And someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs."
Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who is no relation to Jay Leno, last month introduced a bill to legalize gay marriage in California. Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill.
The assemblyman said he was pleased to hear that the governor opposed a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. But, he said, he saw Schwarzenegger's statements "let the court decide … let the people decide" as contradictory.
"Constitutional issues need to be reviewed and decided by courts and not left to majority opinion polls or cast ballots," said Leno. "Otherwise, few in this country would have any civil rights."
Knight, on the other hand, said he was disappointed in Schwarzenegger's inability to halt the marriages in San Francisco.
"He's not followed up in San Francisco," said Knight. "They're still issuing marriage licenses, they're still breaking the law."
Knight said that if the Legislature passed a bill to legalize gay marriage, he would sue, just as he has sued to try to block a new law sponsored by Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles) that next January will grant more rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners.
"Eventually the courts are going to have to take the issue and decide," he said. "Although I don't have much hope in California. The judges so far have not been willing to tackle the issue."
During the "Tonight Show" interview, Jay Leno made an extended speech about what he saw as growing support for gay marriage among the young. "With younger people, it seems to be gathering momentum," Leno said.
"That's good," Schwarzenegger said. "I think it's a good debate. It's a very interesting question, and I think the courts should make those decisions. But I think before that happens, we should obey the law."
Schwarzenegger has been one of the most frequent guests in the history of "The Tonight Show," and has used the venue to make major announcements about his career, including his entry into politics on Aug. 6 of last year.
But the governor did not appear to be attempting to make news on gay marriage. During the same interview, the governor joked he was fighting with his Hollywood agents because they wanted 10% of the state budget. Schwarzenegger seemed more intent on campaigning for two ballot measures to eliminate budget deficits — Propositions 57 and 58 — which appear on today's statewide ballot.
Schwarzenegger initially glared at Jay Leno when he raised the issue of gay marriage, but the ensuing discussion was lighthearted.
After Jay Leno introduced the subject by asking, "This gay marriage thing, what's your position on it, how do you deal with it?"
Schwarzenegger paused pregnantly and asked, "Are you trying to ask me something?"
"No, I'm not trying to ask you something," Leno replied.
"C'mon, admit it," the governor said. "All right, I admit," Leno said. "I'm in love with you."
Slight an Aside here....My own opinion here....just my personal preference...NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE TO ADOPT MY OPINION.
You know, I REALLY DO NOT like this habit some of us here at Gspt have developed here to post these endless articles and "back stories" to support our own positions. It seemed to be an outgrowth of the S'qazi/Zixar/Rocky/Bunch of other people/ debates over in the political forums and now it has invaded the open forum.
I NEVER read them, I don't care about reading them, If I wanted to read them I could find them myself.....I HAVE A COMPUTER!!!
I prefer to read and consider the opinions and feelings of other posters....not the opinions and feelings of their current affairs gurus.
When and how did Gspot become a DEBATE SITE where the posters are required to document their positions? I thought we were able to just voice our opinions without being forced too bring in at least one other published source.
I am not advocating same sex marriage but I may have an answer for you. I think all 50 states have anti-incest laws that cover things like Mother/Daughter, Father/Son, Brother/Brother, Brother/Sister, Mother/Son, Father/Daughter. Actually, some states go as far as regulating the degrees to which cousins may marry. Traditionally, these types of decisions have been made on a state by state basis and are not an element of the US Constitution.
I am not sure...just a thought. I know that you, yourself will check this out and get back to me....I am thankful that YOU won't be posting an article in response ;)-->
Radar
BUT.......I am not sure how that applies to StepFather/StepDaughter situations like Woody Allen and Soon Yi
Touche Radar....I never read those lengthy articles either...my eyes tend to , so I bypass them. In fact, after a few sentences if someone doesn't paragraph themselves, I skip over that too...
Well, I'm in Massachusetts...and I've been watching the TV and it seems this topic is spreading ...San Fransisco, New Paltz (where the heck is that?)...New Mexico...and this morning in the news I hear it is spreading to Rhode Island...it's an epidemic I tell ya ;)-->
Mr Card is a Mormon and his church has an interesting history regarding marriage and "flaunting the laws" itself.
His church only dropped polygamy for political purposes and self-preservation.
It was one of the most rabid opponents of civil rights and took a low view of coloured people for many years, denying them the Mormon priesthoods and temple ordinances.
It has also been one of the most rabid opponents of gay marriage and has continued to cling to outmoded viewpoints about homosexuality. His church even used to apply electric shock therapy, believing this could change a person's nature. His church's doctrines have split families up over the issue and led to suicides.
His church is led by elderly men in their seventies, eighties and even nineties - the very group who have the biggest problem with the issue. These men claim to speak for the Lord, that when they speak the thinking has already been done and do no take kindly to opposition of any kind - they excommunicated many Mormon intellectuals, including historians, who came up with some inconvenient facts about their church's history - including how they were once accepting of gays.
I correspond with gay Mormons and ex Mormons and am fully aware of what has gone on and what continues to go on. Prominent Mormons are also almost overwhelmingly Republican.
He talks about the ayatollahs - he should look to his own church headquarters.
I am underwhelmed. Particularly at Orson Scott Card. All he has managed to do was to put together a well-written version of that old 'chicken little' saw about how homosexuality is going to mean the destruction of the family, reproductive maintainance needed to keep society and civilization going, and upending of our western civilization and our 'Moral Values', yada yada yada! Well, at least, in his opinion, the pie is Left (oops :D-->), so not all is lost.
Plus I didn't take Mr. Card for the religiously apocolyptic type. Here I was thinking that he was more or less Libertarian in his views.
And many (if not all) of those points have been addressed and counter addressed here as well. Perhaps you could forward to the illustrious Mr. Card the points we all made here, but I imagine that he has heard them all before, and perhaps better written too.
We're not gonna burn in hell and have Western Civilization descend into a post-nuclear 'Road Warrior' like world, really we're not, because the Mass. court ruled like it did.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Radar: They do tend to get a bit lengthy, I agree. Most should probably be linked using the "URL" button in the Instant UBBCode box instead of pasted verbatim. Still, while it isn't required to post supporting evidence, it does help, at times, to know where a particular piece of someone's position came from.
If you'll look back a couple of years, you'll find that this was going on long before the QQ/Rocky/Zix conflict occurred, so please don't be so quick as to lay this at our feet.
Trefor: Attacking a man because of his religious beliefs? Are all homosexuals such paragons of tolerance? -->
Garth: I notice that neither you nor Trefor actually refuted anything Card said. You built a nice straw man, but you haven't offered anything of substance for the contrary view.
Read what I and Trefor wrote again. We *did* address the points raised by Mr. Card. Its just that we addressed them prior to your posting of his article.
And your slam of Trefor being bigoted against Mormons as a religion through Mr. Card is rather baseless. Trefor addressed actual facts about the Mormon Church in relation to this topic as well as their well-known reputation for taking a narrow view re opposing viewpoints. For further proof of this, just ask Grizzy.
That wasn't even a nice try on your part. --> So I take it you haven't had your morning coffee yet? ;)-->
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 7
68
Feb 5
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
Tom Strange
were you fishing for someone's confidence Jonny Lingo?
She's the kind of a girl that makes the "News of the World" Yes you could say she was attractively built.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Long Gone:
Just because you disagree with the judges does not mean that their considerations are wrong. I have disagreed with Supreme Court decisions also but they do try very hard to use the power that is given to them very carefully indeed in addressing the cases that come before them. The process of choosing them is all political – proposed by the incumbent president – and interrogated by congress. Once invested, they are not required to follow a party line to attempt to follow purely judicial principles. They “invent” nothing – they have to deal with the constitution as it is written, not as some people would write it. Many decisions have been “contrary to all precedent” – the Dredd Scott case for example set a precedent about slavery – do you think that should still be followed just because it set a precedent?
I think that Garth did a good explanation on that one. Maybe sometimes language can be heated but when you see some of the language that is used against gays by some you should hopefully understand.
Understandings of rights evolve, they are not fixed by one moment in time. I do not condemn people as bigots simply for disagreeing but for their arguments and their language. We have no written constitution nor bill or rights over here except those granted by the monarch through act of parliament and yet we seem to have a better understanding of rights sometimes than those have something in more tangible form. Of course there is a proposed European Constitution which will, when established have precedence over domestic law and some countries in Europe do have gay marriage already.
Our country has an "understanding", not a definition. However it is at least prepared to make a legal allowance for gay relationships that your proposed amendment does not. Effectively it will be marriage in all but name and will give full legal protections and recognition.
No church has to recognise a civil marriage religiously. But then again the state does not have to recognise a religious marriage without the civil element. In most countries in Europe two ceremonies are actually required – the civil one first legitimises the marriage in the eyes of the state and that is the only one which does. Grace Kelly was married to Prince Rainier in a civil marriage the day before the big “show” that was the religious one. Here we are civilised enough to allow one ceremony providing a legitimate registrar is present to witness and register the marriage. The Church of England clergy act as civil registrars for example for church marriages. Divorce is always a civil matter. If Roman Catholics divorce that does not mean that they are free to marry again in the eyes of their church who may refuse remarriage and also the sacraments to those who remarry, even civilly, without going through the church’s own annulment process.
They only decided against "marriage" because they felt the time was not yet quite right to use the term but the civil arrangements are akin to marriage in all but name. They could be converted to marriages without the need for another ceremony. There is a reactionary element in our unelected House of Lords wgho fight tooth and nail against any improvement in matters like this.
zixar:
But the amendment still EXTENDED rights by making the franchise available to those who had previously been denied it. It was progress and not regress. In this country we are already seeing the consideration of voting being extended to 16 year olds, less discrimination again. As has been pointed out, only Prohibition has actually denied rights and that was repealed. It’s a poor example as discrimination that you cite.
Hmm, I could get Freudian but I will avoid the temptation!
;)-->
Another poor example and yet another blatant example of where you Americans get it things SO wrong!
:D--> It is a uniform custom in the country and is to prevent accidents. It is nothing to do with sexuality, race, age, or religion or gender. Adjustment to that custom is possible just as you guys have to adjust to the correct way of doing things when you drive over here.
chwester:
Your understanding of Sodom is so easily demolishable as your understanding of judgement. For you God is a God of hate who throws childish hissy fits when he does not get his own way. Like Garth, if I believed in your God, I too would have to be an atheist.
dmiller:
Well I do know some X-rated Welsh but that wasn’t some of it!
:o-->
mr p-Mosh
Cac is the same in Welsh so I can translate that much! Ceud Mile F?te!
Jonny:
It was only because it removed the hurt from the word and was turned into a word of affirmation. Not everyone likes it although it doesn’t bother me - it’s not a word I would chose to describe myself though.
You saying gays are constipated?
-->
mj:
The people are the people, all the people not just the majority of the people. Majorities can be tyrannical and persecuting as history has shown over and over again.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Trefor: Would you recognize an analogy if you saw one?
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
A list of 12 Reasons Why Gay People Should Not Be Allowed to Get Married, emailed to me by an e-pal:
>1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and
>birth control.
>2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children.
>Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the
>world needs more children.
>3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight
>parents raise only straight children.
>4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage is
>allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was
>meaningful.
>5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed
>at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is
>illegal.
>6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because
>the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically
>protected the rights of the minorities.
>7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours,
>the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's
>why we have only one religion in America.
>8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that
>hanging around tall people will make you tall.
>9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
>behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has
>legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
>10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model
>at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
>11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual
>marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to
>new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or
>longer lifespans.
>12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with
>a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution
>is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked
>just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
By George, I think Dubya finally has some solid ammo to get his amendment through with, doncha think?
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Bravo Garth.
Finally we have a logic based argument!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Oh, how clever! But it is only five senses logic...
And yeah, I was talkin to you and I guess Garth and anyone else who thinks that's cute and "right on"...
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord"
Which includes adherence to His statutes, which a governmental stamp of approval on gay marriages is not. And, we are not going to agree on this one and that is the very bottom line...Sorry
Yeah yeah, I know. I am a narrow minded homophobe bigot I guess...
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Garth's list calls to mind something that I and others have requested, but no one has yet offered.
Can anyone straightforwardly state what changes you think should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships, and offer a reasonable argument to support your position?
I'm not asking for a repeat of the "equal rights" mantra. Homosexuals currently have exactly the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. I'm not asking for complaints about religion. They're irrelevant. Civil marriage is not a religious institution.
Marriage exists as a civil institution because society views it as a preferred state, worthy of special legal status because of its benefit to society. Same-sex domestic relationships, whether formalized by a ceremony or not, are already legal. They simply aren't recognized by the state as civil marriages. If you think they should be, then offer some reasons, particularly benefits to society.
Along with reasons you may offer to support your position, you will need to consider possible consequences. If same-sex marriages are to be adopted, should that include brother-brother or father-son marriages. If not, why not. If so, should brother-sister, mother-son, or father-daughter marriages also be adopted? Again, if not, why not.
So far, not one person advocating same-sex marriage has covered any of this.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oooooo, cool imitation of Smikeol, guy.
:D-->
Now all we need to do is master Smikeol's preciousssss, PFAL, then we'll have it made in the shade!
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Long Gone,
Uhhh, yes it has been covered. I believe the phrase 'equal protection under the law' (in relation to marital laws in this case) was used at least twice on my account.
And how many laws and legal setups that involve equal protection under the law are set up with the particular purpose of its benefit to society, outside of the obvious benefit of, why looky, here's that phrase again, 'equal protection under the law'?
And since your usual brother-sister, mother-son, father-daughter, brother-brother, father-son relationships aren't involving marriages, that is more or less a moot point. And for those particular relationships that do involve intimate relations, biological and familial reasons that have clearly shown how destructive those kinds of relationships are have been known for many years.
And since I know where you're going with this, may I point out that the same kind of destructive results have failed to be clearly shown in gay relationships. (And no, you may not use the AIDS argument, as that has never been shown to be directly, or indirectly even, a result of homosexuality. Sorry!) The same kind of vis-a-vis comparison fails with the multiple-wives and -husbands relationships to the gays as well. Of course, there are those who would try to show that because they had polygamy in the Bible, that that should be legalized also. But I'll leave that dollar for another day.
Evidently since homosexuality has been amongst us for thousands of years, AND since more and more scientific data is illustrating that homosexuality is more than just a 'flash in the pan', 'Hey! I think that I'll just turn gay today!', 'this is just one of them thar special rights kind of relationships' arrangements, but is showing to be a real and naturally based kind of relationship that is part of the human species, frankly folks, we are going to have to accept that inevitable conclusion and have the law do likewise.
I mean, look at all the slave owners/racial bigots who had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 19th/20th centuries in realizing that blacks weren't biologically 3/5ths of a person, but are full human beings. ... under the law!
Does this help answer your question?
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Jonny:
His “statutes” as you call them are largely a matter of interpretation. I don’t see adherence to what some see as his “statutes” on divorce or on killing, or on how some people treat each other. People can be very selective as to what they agree or disagree with God about.
Long Gone:
The rehash of the same old illogical argument regarding the right to marry the opposite sex. It does not address the question in hand about the right to marry the same sex. When it comes to prohibitions, the onus should be on those who support the prohibition to clearly demonstrate WHY it should be prohibited, after all in a court a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Arguments on the basis of tradition or reproduction have already been demonstrated to be flawed. Garth has pointed out that equal protection is not a matter of something have to justify itself to others. It should be the automatic default when there are no good valid solid and obvious reasons why it should be otherwise.
Such marriages by western standards, would be no more acceptable than brother-sister or father-daughter marriages. In other societies these have been a traditional practice despite the genetic problems created by inbreeding. Obviously in a same sex situation there would be no danger of this but I cannot foresee many situations where such people would wish to take this up to any major degree. If you were to rule that same sex marriage could only be allowed if the provision was equally applied to such examples I would make no objection for the sake of the vast majority of unrelated people who would benefit. It is not something, I hasten to add, that I would be into myself.
I suspect, however, that similar kinship exclusions would be applied as they are to heterosexual marriage.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
A quote from Dan Savage in Village Voice
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Another interesting viewpoint which I post without comment:
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
While we're posting long articles, here's a good one that hits the societal issues well...
:)-->
Orson Scott Card's take on Homosexual Marriage
[This message was edited by Zixar on March 03, 2004 at 12:53.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
Slight an Aside here....My own opinion here....just my personal preference...NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE TO ADOPT MY OPINION.
You know, I REALLY DO NOT like this habit some of us here at Gspt have developed here to post these endless articles and "back stories" to support our own positions. It seemed to be an outgrowth of the S'qazi/Zixar/Rocky/Bunch of other people/ debates over in the political forums and now it has invaded the open forum.
I NEVER read them, I don't care about reading them, If I wanted to read them I could find them myself.....I HAVE A COMPUTER!!!
I prefer to read and consider the opinions and feelings of other posters....not the opinions and feelings of their current affairs gurus.
When and how did Gspot become a DEBATE SITE where the posters are required to document their positions? I thought we were able to just voice our opinions without being forced too bring in at least one other published source.
Oh well.....now I have that off my chest.
Carry on!!
Radar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
Long gone.....
I am not advocating same sex marriage but I may have an answer for you. I think all 50 states have anti-incest laws that cover things like Mother/Daughter, Father/Son, Brother/Brother, Brother/Sister, Mother/Son, Father/Daughter. Actually, some states go as far as regulating the degrees to which cousins may marry. Traditionally, these types of decisions have been made on a state by state basis and are not an element of the US Constitution.
I am not sure...just a thought. I know that you, yourself will check this out and get back to me....I am thankful that YOU won't be posting an article in response
;)-->
Radar
BUT.......I am not sure how that applies to StepFather/StepDaughter situations like Woody Allen and Soon Yi
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Wacky Funster
Touche Radar....I never read those lengthy articles either...my eyes tend to
, so I bypass them. In fact, after a few sentences if someone doesn't paragraph themselves, I skip over that too...
Well, I'm in Massachusetts...and I've been watching the TV and it seems this topic is spreading ...San Fransisco, New Paltz (where the heck is that?)...New Mexico...and this morning in the news I hear it is spreading to Rhode Island...it's an epidemic I tell ya
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Zix:
Mr Card is a Mormon and his church has an interesting history regarding marriage and "flaunting the laws" itself.
His church only dropped polygamy for political purposes and self-preservation.
It was one of the most rabid opponents of civil rights and took a low view of coloured people for many years, denying them the Mormon priesthoods and temple ordinances.
It has also been one of the most rabid opponents of gay marriage and has continued to cling to outmoded viewpoints about homosexuality. His church even used to apply electric shock therapy, believing this could change a person's nature. His church's doctrines have split families up over the issue and led to suicides.
His church is led by elderly men in their seventies, eighties and even nineties - the very group who have the biggest problem with the issue. These men claim to speak for the Lord, that when they speak the thinking has already been done and do no take kindly to opposition of any kind - they excommunicated many Mormon intellectuals, including historians, who came up with some inconvenient facts about their church's history - including how they were once accepting of gays.
I correspond with gay Mormons and ex Mormons and am fully aware of what has gone on and what continues to go on. Prominent Mormons are also almost overwhelmingly Republican.
He talks about the ayatollahs - he should look to his own church headquarters.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Zix,
I am underwhelmed. Particularly at Orson Scott Card. All he has managed to do was to put together a well-written version of that old 'chicken little' saw about how homosexuality is going to mean the destruction of the family, reproductive maintainance needed to keep society and civilization going, and upending of our western civilization and our 'Moral Values', yada yada yada! Well, at least, in his opinion, the pie is Left (oops
:D-->), so not all is lost.
Plus I didn't take Mr. Card for the religiously apocolyptic type. Here I was thinking that he was more or less Libertarian in his views.
And many (if not all) of those points have been addressed and counter addressed here as well. Perhaps you could forward to the illustrious Mr. Card the points we all made here, but I imagine that he has heard them all before, and perhaps better written too.
We're not gonna burn in hell and have Western Civilization descend into a post-nuclear 'Road Warrior' like world, really we're not, because the Mass. court ruled like it did.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Radar: They do tend to get a bit lengthy, I agree. Most should probably be linked using the "URL" button in the Instant UBBCode box instead of pasted verbatim. Still, while it isn't required to post supporting evidence, it does help, at times, to know where a particular piece of someone's position came from.
If you'll look back a couple of years, you'll find that this was going on long before the QQ/Rocky/Zix conflict occurred, so please don't be so quick as to lay this at our feet.
Want me to document that?
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Trefor: Attacking a man because of his religious beliefs? Are all homosexuals such paragons of tolerance?
-->
Garth: I notice that neither you nor Trefor actually refuted anything Card said. You built a nice straw man, but you haven't offered anything of substance for the contrary view.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Zix,
Read what I and Trefor wrote again. We *did* address the points raised by Mr. Card. Its just that we addressed them prior to your posting of his article.
And your slam of Trefor being bigoted against Mormons as a religion through Mr. Card is rather baseless. Trefor addressed actual facts about the Mormon Church in relation to this topic as well as their well-known reputation for taking a narrow view re opposing viewpoints. For further proof of this, just ask Grizzy.
That wasn't even a nice try on your part.
--> So I take it you haven't had your morning coffee yet? 
;)-->
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.