Well, sometimes the justification is that it isn't a traditional definition of marriage (regardless of religion) and therefore there is no substantive or equal protection right to equal marriage beyond a man and woman. (I don't agree with this but if you are an originalist it works)
An originalist in this stance would also argue that a black man and a white woman have no right to marry as well.
Also; women are property and marriage only exists to tie your family closer to the person giving you a dowry.
Well, sometimes the justification is that it isn't a traditional definition of marriage (regardless of religion) and therefore there is no substantive or equal protection right to equal marriage beyond a man and woman. (I don't agree with this but if you are an originalist it works)
At best, the law uses precedent as a defense for enabling action, not restricting rights. The latter usually needs some kind of rational argument beyond, "um, tradition?"
If we let convention and tradition govern our decision making, we'd still be in the Dark Ages under Vatican rule, fighting off Spanish conquistadors after our stolen Mayan gold.
Well, sometimes the justification is that it isn't a traditional definition of marriage (regardless of religion) and therefore there is no substantive or equal protection right to equal marriage beyond a man and woman. (I don't agree with this but if you are an originalist it works)
An originalist in this stance would also argue that a black man and a white woman have no right to marry as well.
Also; women are property and marriage only exists to tie your family closer to the person giving you a dowry.
The consolidation of assets and strengthening of bloodlines between families are the only real, legit reasons for marriage. Well, in a logical sense. Sure there's "love" but that only leads to tragedy.
If there was really nothing more than Leviticus behind the arguments against gay marriage, they wouldn't continue to be such an issue. The defense of marriage, gender roles in society, forcing organizations to recognize homosexuality, and so on.... I'm not saying these are valid or FTW, but I've never really believed it when people claim that arguments against gay marriage are only religious arguments.
Yar on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Since the last gay rights thread got mired in religious talk
Isn't that almost necessarily the case though? At least with regard to gay marriage, I've yet to hear a single argument in opposition that wasn't rooted in religion.
The old thread was more of a discussion of current events in gay rights progression. While I think that has a place here, too, I don't want us shying away from discussing the religious aspects of the opposition (or defense, for that matter), as like many have said, religion is at the heart of the opposition's entrenchment. It'd be kind of like having a civil rights thread in the 60s where we couldn't talk about the influence of media stereotypes on public opinion.
If there was really nothing more than Leviticus behind the arguments against gay marriage, they wouldn't continue to be such an issue. The defense of marriage, gender roles in society, forcing organizations to recognize homosexuality, and so on.... I'm not saying these are valid or FTW, but I've never really believed it when people claim that arguments against gay marriage are only religious arguments.
There aren't though. "They can't have kids" is the only real one, but neither can infertile women and they get married all the time, so it falls apart right away. "We think it's icky" isn't a reason.
matt has a problem on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
If there was really nothing more than Leviticus behind the arguments against gay marriage, they wouldn't continue to be such an issue. The defense of marriage, gender roles in society, forcing organizations to recognize homosexuality, and so on.... I'm not saying these are valid or FTW, but I've never really believed it when people claim that arguments against gay marriage are only religious arguments.
I agree entirely, but it's the uniting force of protected religious speech that allows these things to go on unabated.
Which, not really an issue I want to go too deep into, as many here, certainly myself and Thanatos, have had enough conversation on the topic, "Is religion evil, or is it used by evil people?" for several lifetimes.
Is protected religious speech really wielded as a weapon in this? I hadn't seen that. But no, matt, most arguments I've heard were about gender roles in society, the historical role of marriage, the defense of a value in this historical/traditional role of marraige, and about government forcing acceptance of certain lifestyle/behaviors that people might find "icky."
My argument about tradition is a legalistic way of saying "you didn't used to have these rights, so you don't get substantive protection now" Which ain't that great Ross, I admit (i mean, wow would this country be in trouble if this standard were widely adhered to) And you're right generally we don't deny rights based on tradition, at least not in the law. (a formalistic person would argue its not a denial but non-recognition, but that isn't a satisfying response)
Now that I think about it though, it is possible to just argue that the state has always had the ability to recognize marriage as it saw fit. And, since homosexuals are not a suspect class, all that is required to deny them equal protection is a rational basis with legitimate governmetn interests (And in this case, literally ANY interest would suffice that a court could think up). I think this occurred in Romer v. Evans (And then the court oddly applied something I call, second order rational basis review)
ATIRage on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Is protected religious speech really wielded as a weapon in this? I hadn't seen that. But no, matt, most arguments I've heard were about gender roles in society, the historical role of marriage, the defense of a value in this historical/traditional role of marraige, and about government forcing acceptance of certain lifestyle/behaviors that people might find "icky."
None of which have much rational basis or authoritative defense. Certainly not to the degree that would support restriction of someone's rights.
And if we're going down the "historical role of marriage" route, it wasn't all that long ago in America that marriage laws allowed for consanguinity and for what's now considered pedophilia.
Well, sometimes the justification is that it isn't a traditional definition of marriage (regardless of religion) and therefore there is no substantive or equal protection right to equal marriage beyond a man and woman. (I don't agree with this but if you are an originalist it works)
An originalist in this stance would also argue that a black man and a white woman have no right to marry as well.
Also; women are property and marriage only exists to tie your family closer to the person giving you a dowry.
The consolidation of assets and strengthening of bloodlines between families are the only real, legit reasons for marriage. Well, in a logical sense. Sure there's "love" but that only leads to tragedy.
I can't tell how much of that was joking, and how much was serious. Clarify please?
Child brides are also traditional marriage. In fact, the earlier you get a girl to her rapist (husband) the better, because you minimize the risk of her being devalued as a commodity due to voluntary hymen trauma.
Also, traditional marriage does not allow divorce.
I don't really think most of the conservatives want to turn the clock back quite that far, but its an emotional appeal argument based on nothing rational, so don't expect consistency.
Hell, GAY MARRIAGE is a traditional Christian marriage.
Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
None of which have much rational basis or authoritative defense. Certainly not to the degree that would support restriction of someone's rights.
And if we're going down the "historical role of marriage" route, it wasn't all that long ago in America that marriage laws allowed for consanguinity and for what's now considered pedophilia.
This is why I've tried to be careful to explain that I'm not arguing the merits of these points, I'm just pointing out that I feel it impedes progress on the discourse when we try to paint it all with a "you're just a bible-thumper" brush. There is a melting pot of cultural, religious, and philosophical complexities surrounding this issue. The startlingly high rates of anti-homosexual sentiment within African American culture, for example. It's something to talk about. I've heard it also explained as "they're just bible thumpers," but, again, somehow I don't think that's an accurate assessment of what's going on.
Yar on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Child brides are also traditional marriage. In fact, the earlier you get a girl to her rapist (husband) the better, because you minimize the risk of her being devalued as a commodity due to voluntary hymen trauma.
Also, traditional marriage does not allow divorce.
I don't really think most of the conservatives want to turn the clock back quite that far, but its an emotional appeal argument based on nothing rational, so don't expect consistency.
Nor do I think conservatives want to go even further back, back to the time when marriage was a completely secular event, back before the Catholic Church appropriated it as a religious ceremony.
Though, it's not like cherry-picking historical data for rhetorical purposes has ever been a problem for conservatives.
If there was really nothing more than Leviticus behind the arguments against gay marriage, they wouldn't continue to be such an issue. The defense of marriage, gender roles in society, forcing organizations to recognize homosexuality, and so on.... I'm not saying these are valid or FTW, but I've never really believed it when people claim that arguments against gay marriage are only religious arguments.
There aren't though. "They can't have kids" is the only real one, but neither can infertile women and they get married all the time, so it falls apart right away. "We think it's icky" isn't a reason.
That's not the only reason that argument doesn't stand up. There are plenty of married couples who are perfectly capable of producing children, but do not want them.
Yeah. I also hear a lot of people attribute African American attitudes toward gay men, as some kind of reaction to threats to African American maleness, since there is a history of forced emasculation thanks to slavery. We stole their women and fathered children with them while they were married and did so for hundreds of years. They were not allowed the traditional father role for hundreds of years, and I guess that has left a pretty severe trauma in the psyche of that group.
I don't pretend to know or have proof, but that's one explanation I've heard from a number of academics.
Well, sometimes the justification is that it isn't a traditional definition of marriage (regardless of religion) and therefore there is no substantive or equal protection right to equal marriage beyond a man and woman. (I don't agree with this but if you are an originalist it works)
An originalist in this stance would also argue that a black man and a white woman have no right to marry as well.
Also; women are property and marriage only exists to tie your family closer to the person giving you a dowry.
The consolidation of assets and strengthening of bloodlines between families are the only real, legit reasons for marriage. Well, in a logical sense. Sure there's "love" but that only leads to tragedy.
I can't tell how much of that was joking, and how much was serious. Clarify please?
It wasn't joking, that's what marriage is. Love, emotion and so on are nice, but not required. It's a marriage contract, not a marriage touchy-feely-happy-goodtimes. Yes, we've expanded beyond this definition in the modern era. No, this does not change what marriage actually is.
Ok, the love leads to tragedy part was joking. Sometimes.
Bubba, I think you're misunderstanding the gospel story of Jesus responding to the questioners with "render unto Caesar...". They were trying to trap him into a false dichotomy, and into a position where he would either stand against Rome or against the Jews. His answer was ambiguous and took the middle road - it's no ringing endorsement of the separation of church and state.
Either that, or you're trying to perform the same feat as the questioners.
Also, I think your conclusion that the church has no interest in marriage is missing some premises.
I know why they asked Jesus the question. But their motive in asking it in no way erases the impact of what Jesus said.
And I think it does speak to the separation of church and state.
When they ask Jesus whether they should pay taxes, he asks whose face is on the coin? They answer that it's Caesar's face on the coin, and Jesus give the "render unto Caesar..." reply.
Basically Jesus is acknowledging that the people have a contract with their earthly government, as well as with God. Caesar provides roads and aqueducts and law enforcement and all that, for which the people pay him taxes.
So too does the State of New York provide tax breaks, visitation rights, etc., to persons in exchange for them going through the process (I assume it involves fees and paperwork) of becoming civilly joined.
My conclusion is that the Church has no interest in civil marriage. They obviously have lots of interest vested in what constitutes a Church-recognized marriage. What I'm not seeing is the nexus that mandates qualifications of the latter dictate those of the former, or else face excommunication.
BubbaT on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
My conclusion is that the Church has no interest in civil marriage. They obviously have lots of interest vested in what constitutes a Church-recognized marriage. What I'm not seeing is the nexus that mandates qualifications of the latter dictate those of the former, or else face excommunication.
Exactly. As stated before, if support for secular unions outside of the Church (or fuck, just apathy for those unions) constitutes a trespass worthy of excommunication, that really opens up the floodgates to many more types of objectionable trespasses, doesn't it?
I mean, if saying that non-Catholics have the right to enter into non-Catholic unions is an actionable crime against one's own place in Catholicism, at that point what isn't?
For instance, if I were a vegan (ha!) on moral grounds, people who campaign to get meat to more places and to be more prevalent in the world would upset me, as their ideals are in direct opposition to my own. If I was running a Vegan club and I discovered that one of the members was also a spokesperson for a chicken farm, I'd probably kick him out of the Vegan club.
Eating meat is contradictory to veganism.
State recognition of a marriage contract between 2 dudes is not contradictory to Christianity. According to the Bible, Jesus explicitly says that some issues are earthly civil issues to be governed by the state.
It is however, contradictory to the doctrines and dogma of the Catholic Church, and many other churches. Those "clubs" have specific rulesets, not just the Bible, that governs how they perceive the morality of an action. Are there any major sects of Christianity (or any religion?) that aren't against gay marriage? Most just use the Leviticus quote. Or the "be fruitful and multiply" bit, as far as I know.
It doesn't matter. The government is not forcing the Catholic church to: Marry gays, accept gays, have gays as parishioners, or perform any services for gays.
I already know the Church's position is indefensible from an American legal point of view. I'm saying it's also indefensible from a Christian point of view, as evidenced by the word of God himself.
The Church claims to adhere to the latter.
I'm also saying the Church's position doesn't even adhere to Catholicism. Things like "Hate the sin, love the sinner" suggest that it's actions that should be condemned, not states of being. After all, are not all people sinners in Catholicism? Sodomy is an action, being married is a state of being.
When convicted of the fault, it is her duty to submit to the corrective discipline which may be appointed by the prioress or the prior.
If she refuse to submit to this, and does not go away from you of her own accord, let her be expelled from your society. For this is not done cruelly but mercifully, to protect very many from perishing through infection of the plague with which one has been stricken.
Moreover, what I have now said in regard to abstaining from wanton looks should be carefully observed, with due love for the persons and hatred of the sin, in observing, forbidding, reporting, reproving, and punishing of all other faults.
The action of homosexual sodomy can be repented, just as surely as the acts of heterosexual sodomy or "wanton looks" can.
Let's say 2 gay men get civilly married. But they don't have sex, or even have sexy thoughts of each other. Have they committed a sin?
Heck, let's make it 2 straight men who get civilly married - for tax purposes, let's call it "friends with legal benefits". Have they committed a sin?
Yeah. I also hear a lot of people attribute African American attitudes toward gay men, as some kind of reaction to threats to African American maleness, since there is a history of forced emasculation thanks to slavery. We stole their women and fathered children with them while they were married and did so for hundreds of years. They were not allowed the traditional father role for hundreds of years, and I guess that has left a pretty severe trauma in the psyche of that group.
I don't pretend to know or have proof, but that's one explanation I've heard from a number of academics.
I think they're envious because gay is the new black.
Srsly tho, I don't think it helps when the wealthy gay lawyer in Manhattan goes on record about how he had to get one of his lawyer friends to set up a will and power of attorney for him and his partner, instead of just getting married, and that it's just like the way impoverished disenfranchised blacks used to be firehosed for trying to eat at a white restaurant.
My conclusion is that the Church has no interest in civil marriage. They obviously have lots of interest vested in what constitutes a Church-recognized marriage. What I'm not seeing is the nexus that mandates qualifications of the latter dictate those of the former, or else face excommunication.
This is about as right as you're going to get. Civil marriage is just a piece of paper to God, that's it. The years of the laws that a nation followed being the same as what God wants them to follow died when Jesus fufilled the old coventant and ushered in an upgraded version thereof (I'm putting this in very loose terms, because that isn't the topic here). The binding commitment before God and fellow Christians, as well as to each other, is what matters. That is marriage 'to God', not anything that the state has to say.
Too often people try and equate the too, and that's partly what got us in this mess to begin with. In the end, what the state does with their marriage laws is no real concern for the church unless it impacts the church's views on marriage directly (I.E forcing the church to acknowlege same-sex marriages as having the approval of God, etc).
I kinda wish the state didn't actually have anything to do with marriage at all, and that it was just reduced to civil unions for everyone. The whole state of these laws are probably only this way because of years of people just putting state marriage and God's marriage in the same box, even though marriage is really more of a social or religious thing.
Well, sometimes the justification is that it isn't a traditional definition of marriage (regardless of religion) and therefore there is no substantive or equal protection right to equal marriage beyond a man and woman. (I don't agree with this but if you are an originalist it works)
An originalist in this stance would also argue that a black man and a white woman have no right to marry as well.
Also; women are property and marriage only exists to tie your family closer to the person giving you a dowry.
The consolidation of assets and strengthening of bloodlines between families are the only real, legit reasons for marriage. Well, in a logical sense. Sure there's "love" but that only leads to tragedy.
I can't tell how much of that was joking, and how much was serious. Clarify please?
It wasn't joking, that's what marriage is. Love, emotion and so on are nice, but not required. It's a marriage contract, not a marriage touchy-feely-happy-goodtimes. Yes, we've expanded beyond this definition in the modern era. No, this does not change what marriage actually is.
Ok, the love leads to tragedy part was joking. Sometimes.
So, there is more point to a marriage than the legal contract issues made easy by the act. There is also the "two people making a serious commitment to live their lives together and support each other, forsaking all others" part. That's a pretty significant piece, and it's unrelated to the contract issues, or the childrearing.
In fact, "marriage is just a legal thing" contributes very much to the fragility of marriage and family. IMHO. Gays getting married does not contribute to that fragility, but arguments from gay marriage supporters that seek to diminish marriage in an effort to show why it shouldn't be a big deal are doing some harm.
I wish the argument was: "Marriage is important and serious, it's an expression of commitment unique in our culture, and we want that!" instead of "Marriage is just a bunch of legal crap rolled up together and a tax break on your 1040. Why do you care so much about it? U mad bro?"
Bubba, I think you're misunderstanding the gospel story of Jesus responding to the questioners with "render unto Caesar...". They were trying to trap him into a false dichotomy, and into a position where he would either stand against Rome or against the Jews. His answer was ambiguous and took the middle road - it's no ringing endorsement of the separation of church and state.
Either that, or you're trying to perform the same feat as the questioners.
Also, I think your conclusion that the church has no interest in marriage is missing some premises.
I know why they asked Jesus the question. But their motive in asking it in no way erases the impact of what Jesus said.
And I think it does speak to the separation of church and state.
When they ask Jesus whether they should pay taxes, he asks whose face is on the coin? They answer that it's Caesar's face on the coin, and Jesus give the "render unto Caesar..." reply.
Basically Jesus is acknowledging that the people have a contract with their earthly government, as well as with God. Caesar provides roads and aqueducts and law enforcement and all that, for which the people pay him taxes.
So too does the State of New York provide tax breaks, visitation rights, etc., to persons in exchange for them going through the process (I assume it involves fees and paperwork) of becoming civilly joined.
I don't think that's what he's saying at all - he's being ambiguous. He doesn't say that the people have a contract with their government at all. He might be saying that he's not the one to answer whether the Jews should pay taxes to Rome, or he might be saying that the Jews owe nothing to Caesar, or that they should pay what the collectors say they owe, or that they should oppose corruption in taxation, or...
I think you're far off base trying to pin a specific meaning to Jesus's words when He was being intentionally ambiguous in order to screw with the questioners.
I wish the argument was: "Marriage is important and serious, it's an expression of commitment unique in our culture, and we want that!" instead of "Marriage is just a bunch of legal crap rolled up together and a tax break on your 1040. Why do you care so much about it? U mad bro?"
You'd rather have the sky be green and the grass be blue?
At the most basic level a marriage is just one form of legally binding partnership contract. That's the way I view it: I and my wife made legally binding oaths to each other that garner certain benefits, by virtue of our partnership. Kinda like the benefits of an "S" corporation, LLP or LLC, in that the partnership confers legal protections and benefits, but different in the actual benefits received.
I simply don't accept that this cannot be extended for other types of families, and I reject any religious characterization of marriage. Religious considerations are not relevant to the government, only the legal questions are ...
I wish the argument was: "Marriage is important and serious, it's an expression of commitment unique in our culture, and we want that!" instead of "Marriage is just a bunch of legal crap rolled up together and a tax break on your 1040. Why do you care so much about it? U mad bro?"
You'd rather have the sky be green and the grass be blue?
Huh.
Yes, I would like it if the main argument for why gay folks should get married was that they felt marriage was super important, special, more momentous and meaningful than a sheaf of legal documents, and they ought not be denied it.
Crazy talk, I know. But if it's nothing more than a contract, why not just go get a fucking contract? This line of reasoning from gay marriage supporters seems to defeat itself.
I wish the argument was: "Marriage is important and serious, it's an expression of commitment unique in our culture, and we want that!" instead of "Marriage is just a bunch of legal crap rolled up together and a tax break on your 1040. Why do you care so much about it? U mad bro?"
You'd rather have the sky be green and the grass be blue?
Huh.
Yes, I would like it if the main argument for why gay folks should get married was that they felt marriage was super important, special, more momentous and meaningful than a sheaf of legal documents, and they ought not be denied it.
Crazy talk, I know. But if it's nothing more than a contract, why not just go get a fucking contract? This line of reasoning from gay marriage supporters seems to defeat itself.
There's a perfectly good reason why gay-rights supporters use a legal argument in this debate.
Gay marriage supporters try to stand on legal ground, because that offers a shield against the current religious definitions that the "traditional marriage" crowd keeps using. The emotional appeals that you seem to prefer have a place, but neither strategy can actually win the day on its own. African Americans needed both in the 50s and 60s.
We want people to see that legally this is not a big deal, and at the same time tell people the stories about why gay people want to get married and humanize them so we can get to the point where a majority in this country is behind letting non-heterosexuals marry.
Love is obviously a factor and the real motivation behind the movement to give gay people the right to marry like hetero couples, but that alone doesn't win you a ballot initiative.
But... I'm pretty sure that is the argument, spool. They want the important special momentus thing, because that is the only way that gay marriage will be a decisive social victory for gays. If we all agree that the goverment should just forget marriage, and instead recognize simple two-party life partnership contracts that cover those things that need to be covered, and offer to officiate them for a small fee, then a lot of the problem would go away. Existing laws covering legal age, gender discrimination, etc. would kick in automatically. But it wouldn't carry the decisive redefinition of marriage.
As I see it, the political agenda here is specifically to force a recognition onto society that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are no different from one another, and that what homosexuals build with each other is every bit a "marriage" like any other, even if various beliefs disagree. This is accomplished if marriage as it exists right now is redefined to include same-sex couples. This can't be accomplished very well if the government were to simply take a more practical, arbitrary, and rational stance on how it deals with life partnership contracts.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but the goal is not a restrained pragmatic approach that removes the issue, but rather a social and political triumph implemented via government decision and action on the issue. In other words, the goal is for the government to say definiteively that yes, the love gays feel for each other is just as special and meanginful as the love non-gays feel.
It seems very contradictory to my ears, and I'm a supporter!
"How terrible it is that we're denied these fundamental rights that aren't very important and act just like the legal contract stuff we already have! We're going to march in the streets for the right to change the name of the set of legal protections we already get! We won't rest until our right to visit a JP instead of using legalzoom.com is recognized nationwide!!!"
I mean, wtf. Marriage obviously matters more than the contractual aspect would suggest, or else why fucking bother with all this struggle and strife? It's not exactly like burning down the village to save the village, but it's in the neighborhood.
spool32 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It seems very contradictory to my ears, and I'm a supporter!
"How terrible it is that we're denied these fundamental rights that aren't very important and act just like the legal contract stuff we already have! We're going to march in the streets for the right to change the name of the set of legal protections we already get! We won't rest until our right to visit a JP instead of using legalzoom.com is recognized nationwide!!!"
I mean, wtf. Marriage obviously matters more than the contractual aspect would suggest, or else why fucking bother with all this struggle and strife? It's not exactly like burning down the village to save the village, but it's in the neighborhood.
Some of the pertinent difference is technical. Some of it semantic. Some of it cultural.
Would you rather invite your friends and family to your wedding? Or your legal document signing in front of a notary?
It seems very contradictory to my ears, and I'm a supporter!
"How terrible it is that we're denied these fundamental rights that aren't very important and act just like the legal contract stuff we already have! We're going to march in the streets for the right to change the name of the set of legal protections we already get! We won't rest until our right to visit a JP instead of using legalzoom.com is recognized nationwide!!!"
I mean, wtf. Marriage obviously matters more than the contractual aspect would suggest, or else why fucking bother with all this struggle and strife? It's not exactly like burning down the village to save the village, but it's in the neighborhood.
Some of the pertinent difference is technical. Some of it semantic. Some of it cultural.
Would you rather invite your friends and family to your wedding? Or your legal document signing in front of a notary?
Exactly my point! That's why I wish the "it's just a contract, silly christians. y u mad bro?" argument would stop getting trotted out. It's clearly more than just a contract.
Of course, a gay couple could always have a ceremony of whatever form strikes them as appropriate today, and do the legal document signing in private that afternoon. Or invite the lawyer and the notary to the ceremony.
But marriage is more than even the ceremony and the contract. It's part of the social compact. There are cultural components that I'm not sure you can inherit by virtue of the State saying "you're married!" instead of "here is your list of legal rights". But baby steps. This stuff takes time to work its way into the cultural mind.
I just wish people would stop tearing down the institution in an effort to prove their desire to participate is no big deal.
None of which have much rational basis or authoritative defense. Certainly not to the degree that would support restriction of someone's rights.
And if we're going down the "historical role of marriage" route, it wasn't all that long ago in America that marriage laws allowed for consanguinity and for what's now considered pedophilia.
This is why I've tried to be careful to explain that I'm not arguing the merits of these points, I'm just pointing out that I feel it impedes progress on the discourse when we try to paint it all with a "you're just a bible-thumper" brush. There is a melting pot of cultural, religious, and philosophical complexities surrounding this issue. The startlingly high rates of anti-homosexual sentiment within African American culture, for example. It's something to talk about. I've heard it also explained as "they're just bible thumpers," but, again, somehow I don't think that's an accurate assessment of what's going on.
While I'm never shy about jumping on the religion-is-evil train I admit that a lot of anti-homosexual sentiment among people is non-religious in nature (that is, religion is not the dominant factor).
I mean, even in a nation as secular as the Netherlands there are still quite some anti-gay feelings.
On the other hand, religion is still the main player here. The religious concept of sin and various other things about religion make it into the force that actively tries to stop gay marriage and restrict the rights of gay people. It is the main threat to equality. While vague dislike for homosexuality does exist it is generally of a kind that legislation one way or the other will have little effect. Not so for what religious groups try to achieve.
Some people view marriage as only a contract, and others view it as a cultural institution.
As it is unique to each individual and each subset of American culture that it exists in, it is possible for marriage to be "just a contract" for one couple and a very significant religious, moral, political, and contractual agreement for another couple. I don't see either interpretation as particularly invalid.
The assumption that civil unions and marriage are equal as a contract has always struck me as kind of adorably ignorant.
PotatoNinja on
Two goats enter, one car leaves
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Exactly my point! That's why I wish the "it's just a contract, silly christians. y u mad bro?" argument would stop getting trotted out. It's clearly more than just a contract.
Of course, a gay couple could always have a ceremony of whatever form strikes them as appropriate today, and do the legal document signing in private that afternoon. Or invite the lawyer and the notary to the ceremony
You don't need a notary or lawyers for a hetero marriage agreement, and your employment benefits don't need to be audited.
Marriage, in many ways, is the cultural shorthand for many, many things. Why do gays have to jump through extra-hoops?
Also, getting all the rights of marriage one at a time is a very lengthy and expensive process.
That's a terrible argument in favor. With a little effort and a nice website, I bet you could provide a comprehensive package for every State, with all the attendant rights and privs, for less than $50 per couple. That lawyers charge an assload right now is no argument for changing things.
Exactly my point! That's why I wish the "it's just a contract, silly christians. y u mad bro?" argument would stop getting trotted out. It's clearly more than just a contract.
Of course, a gay couple could always have a ceremony of whatever form strikes them as appropriate today, and do the legal document signing in private that afternoon. Or invite the lawyer and the notary to the ceremony
You don't need a notary or lawyers for a hetero marriage agreement, and your employment benefits don't need to be audited.
Marriage, in many ways, is the cultural shorthand for many, many things. Why do gays have to jump through extra-hoops?
I agree they shouldn't, but "marriage is more convenient" isn't much of an argument in favor either, particularly when "identical civil union bill + a buncha churches that will perform ceremonies is not good enough" is a very common argument in favor of full marriage recognition.
Posts
Also; women are property and marriage only exists to tie your family closer to the person giving you a dowry.
At best, the law uses precedent as a defense for enabling action, not restricting rights. The latter usually needs some kind of rational argument beyond, "um, tradition?"
If we let convention and tradition govern our decision making, we'd still be in the Dark Ages under Vatican rule, fighting off Spanish conquistadors after our stolen Mayan gold.
The old thread was more of a discussion of current events in gay rights progression. While I think that has a place here, too, I don't want us shying away from discussing the religious aspects of the opposition (or defense, for that matter), as like many have said, religion is at the heart of the opposition's entrenchment. It'd be kind of like having a civil rights thread in the 60s where we couldn't talk about the influence of media stereotypes on public opinion.
I agree entirely, but it's the uniting force of protected religious speech that allows these things to go on unabated.
Which, not really an issue I want to go too deep into, as many here, certainly myself and Thanatos, have had enough conversation on the topic, "Is religion evil, or is it used by evil people?" for several lifetimes.
Politics though, thats a different matter.
None of which have much rational basis or authoritative defense. Certainly not to the degree that would support restriction of someone's rights.
And if we're going down the "historical role of marriage" route, it wasn't all that long ago in America that marriage laws allowed for consanguinity and for what's now considered pedophilia.
I can't tell how much of that was joking, and how much was serious. Clarify please?
Also, traditional marriage does not allow divorce.
I don't really think most of the conservatives want to turn the clock back quite that far, but its an emotional appeal argument based on nothing rational, so don't expect consistency.
http://www.jinxiboo.com/blog/2009/5/3/when-same-sex-marriage-was-a-christian-rite.html
Nor do I think conservatives want to go even further back, back to the time when marriage was a completely secular event, back before the Catholic Church appropriated it as a religious ceremony.
Though, it's not like cherry-picking historical data for rhetorical purposes has ever been a problem for conservatives.
That's not the only reason that argument doesn't stand up. There are plenty of married couples who are perfectly capable of producing children, but do not want them.
I don't pretend to know or have proof, but that's one explanation I've heard from a number of academics.
Ok, the love leads to tragedy part was joking. Sometimes.
I know why they asked Jesus the question. But their motive in asking it in no way erases the impact of what Jesus said.
And I think it does speak to the separation of church and state.
When they ask Jesus whether they should pay taxes, he asks whose face is on the coin? They answer that it's Caesar's face on the coin, and Jesus give the "render unto Caesar..." reply.
Basically Jesus is acknowledging that the people have a contract with their earthly government, as well as with God. Caesar provides roads and aqueducts and law enforcement and all that, for which the people pay him taxes.
So too does the State of New York provide tax breaks, visitation rights, etc., to persons in exchange for them going through the process (I assume it involves fees and paperwork) of becoming civilly joined.
My conclusion is that the Church has no interest in civil marriage. They obviously have lots of interest vested in what constitutes a Church-recognized marriage. What I'm not seeing is the nexus that mandates qualifications of the latter dictate those of the former, or else face excommunication.
Exactly. As stated before, if support for secular unions outside of the Church (or fuck, just apathy for those unions) constitutes a trespass worthy of excommunication, that really opens up the floodgates to many more types of objectionable trespasses, doesn't it?
I mean, if saying that non-Catholics have the right to enter into non-Catholic unions is an actionable crime against one's own place in Catholicism, at that point what isn't?
I already know the Church's position is indefensible from an American legal point of view. I'm saying it's also indefensible from a Christian point of view, as evidenced by the word of God himself.
The Church claims to adhere to the latter.
I'm also saying the Church's position doesn't even adhere to Catholicism. Things like "Hate the sin, love the sinner" suggest that it's actions that should be condemned, not states of being. After all, are not all people sinners in Catholicism? Sodomy is an action, being married is a state of being.
The action of homosexual sodomy can be repented, just as surely as the acts of heterosexual sodomy or "wanton looks" can.
Let's say 2 gay men get civilly married. But they don't have sex, or even have sexy thoughts of each other. Have they committed a sin?
Heck, let's make it 2 straight men who get civilly married - for tax purposes, let's call it "friends with legal benefits". Have they committed a sin?
Srsly tho, I don't think it helps when the wealthy gay lawyer in Manhattan goes on record about how he had to get one of his lawyer friends to set up a will and power of attorney for him and his partner, instead of just getting married, and that it's just like the way impoverished disenfranchised blacks used to be firehosed for trying to eat at a white restaurant.
This is about as right as you're going to get. Civil marriage is just a piece of paper to God, that's it. The years of the laws that a nation followed being the same as what God wants them to follow died when Jesus fufilled the old coventant and ushered in an upgraded version thereof (I'm putting this in very loose terms, because that isn't the topic here). The binding commitment before God and fellow Christians, as well as to each other, is what matters. That is marriage 'to God', not anything that the state has to say.
Too often people try and equate the too, and that's partly what got us in this mess to begin with. In the end, what the state does with their marriage laws is no real concern for the church unless it impacts the church's views on marriage directly (I.E forcing the church to acknowlege same-sex marriages as having the approval of God, etc).
I kinda wish the state didn't actually have anything to do with marriage at all, and that it was just reduced to civil unions for everyone. The whole state of these laws are probably only this way because of years of people just putting state marriage and God's marriage in the same box, even though marriage is really more of a social or religious thing.
So, there is more point to a marriage than the legal contract issues made easy by the act. There is also the "two people making a serious commitment to live their lives together and support each other, forsaking all others" part. That's a pretty significant piece, and it's unrelated to the contract issues, or the childrearing.
In fact, "marriage is just a legal thing" contributes very much to the fragility of marriage and family. IMHO. Gays getting married does not contribute to that fragility, but arguments from gay marriage supporters that seek to diminish marriage in an effort to show why it shouldn't be a big deal are doing some harm.
I wish the argument was: "Marriage is important and serious, it's an expression of commitment unique in our culture, and we want that!" instead of "Marriage is just a bunch of legal crap rolled up together and a tax break on your 1040. Why do you care so much about it? U mad bro?"
I don't think that's what he's saying at all - he's being ambiguous. He doesn't say that the people have a contract with their government at all. He might be saying that he's not the one to answer whether the Jews should pay taxes to Rome, or he might be saying that the Jews owe nothing to Caesar, or that they should pay what the collectors say they owe, or that they should oppose corruption in taxation, or...
I think you're far off base trying to pin a specific meaning to Jesus's words when He was being intentionally ambiguous in order to screw with the questioners.
You'd rather have the sky be green and the grass be blue?
Huh.
I simply don't accept that this cannot be extended for other types of families, and I reject any religious characterization of marriage. Religious considerations are not relevant to the government, only the legal questions are ...
Am I missing something?
Yes, I would like it if the main argument for why gay folks should get married was that they felt marriage was super important, special, more momentous and meaningful than a sheaf of legal documents, and they ought not be denied it.
Crazy talk, I know. But if it's nothing more than a contract, why not just go get a fucking contract? This line of reasoning from gay marriage supporters seems to defeat itself.
Gay marriage supporters try to stand on legal ground, because that offers a shield against the current religious definitions that the "traditional marriage" crowd keeps using. The emotional appeals that you seem to prefer have a place, but neither strategy can actually win the day on its own. African Americans needed both in the 50s and 60s.
We want people to see that legally this is not a big deal, and at the same time tell people the stories about why gay people want to get married and humanize them so we can get to the point where a majority in this country is behind letting non-heterosexuals marry.
Love is obviously a factor and the real motivation behind the movement to give gay people the right to marry like hetero couples, but that alone doesn't win you a ballot initiative.
As I see it, the political agenda here is specifically to force a recognition onto society that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are no different from one another, and that what homosexuals build with each other is every bit a "marriage" like any other, even if various beliefs disagree. This is accomplished if marriage as it exists right now is redefined to include same-sex couples. This can't be accomplished very well if the government were to simply take a more practical, arbitrary, and rational stance on how it deals with life partnership contracts.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but the goal is not a restrained pragmatic approach that removes the issue, but rather a social and political triumph implemented via government decision and action on the issue. In other words, the goal is for the government to say definiteively that yes, the love gays feel for each other is just as special and meanginful as the love non-gays feel.
"How terrible it is that we're denied these fundamental rights that aren't very important and act just like the legal contract stuff we already have! We're going to march in the streets for the right to change the name of the set of legal protections we already get! We won't rest until our right to visit a JP instead of using legalzoom.com is recognized nationwide!!!"
I mean, wtf. Marriage obviously matters more than the contractual aspect would suggest, or else why fucking bother with all this struggle and strife? It's not exactly like burning down the village to save the village, but it's in the neighborhood.
Some of the pertinent difference is technical. Some of it semantic. Some of it cultural.
Would you rather invite your friends and family to your wedding? Or your legal document signing in front of a notary?
Exactly my point! That's why I wish the "it's just a contract, silly christians. y u mad bro?" argument would stop getting trotted out. It's clearly more than just a contract.
Of course, a gay couple could always have a ceremony of whatever form strikes them as appropriate today, and do the legal document signing in private that afternoon. Or invite the lawyer and the notary to the ceremony.
But marriage is more than even the ceremony and the contract. It's part of the social compact. There are cultural components that I'm not sure you can inherit by virtue of the State saying "you're married!" instead of "here is your list of legal rights". But baby steps. This stuff takes time to work its way into the cultural mind.
I just wish people would stop tearing down the institution in an effort to prove their desire to participate is no big deal.
While I'm never shy about jumping on the religion-is-evil train I admit that a lot of anti-homosexual sentiment among people is non-religious in nature (that is, religion is not the dominant factor).
I mean, even in a nation as secular as the Netherlands there are still quite some anti-gay feelings.
On the other hand, religion is still the main player here. The religious concept of sin and various other things about religion make it into the force that actively tries to stop gay marriage and restrict the rights of gay people. It is the main threat to equality. While vague dislike for homosexuality does exist it is generally of a kind that legislation one way or the other will have little effect. Not so for what religious groups try to achieve.
As it is unique to each individual and each subset of American culture that it exists in, it is possible for marriage to be "just a contract" for one couple and a very significant religious, moral, political, and contractual agreement for another couple. I don't see either interpretation as particularly invalid.
The assumption that civil unions and marriage are equal as a contract has always struck me as kind of adorably ignorant.
You don't need a notary or lawyers for a hetero marriage agreement, and your employment benefits don't need to be audited.
Marriage, in many ways, is the cultural shorthand for many, many things. Why do gays have to jump through extra-hoops?
I agree they shouldn't, but "marriage is more convenient" isn't much of an argument in favor either, particularly when "identical civil union bill + a buncha churches that will perform ceremonies is not good enough" is a very common argument in favor of full marriage recognition.