1. fraymaster - December 6, 1996:
Same-sex marriage advocates like to say that the most compelling reason for gay marriage is gay divorce: that is, the protections that weaker partners in a same-sex union currently don't receive. Take a look at Lindsay Sobel's overview of same-sex marriages in the latest edition of "The Gist" and then post your opinions. Are gays entitled to the same tax benefits and legal protections as heteros? Alimony? Power of attorney?
2. ElliottRW - December 6, 1996:
To me, there are two distinct types of marriage.
The first (and essential) marriage is between adults for the purpose of mutual agency. It is both a legal and a social institution that enables a depth of intimacy, trust, and constructive interdependence that might otherwise be impossible. It has very little to do with sexual intercourse.
The Second marriage builds upon the first and exists for the purpose of raising children. This is where I become ambivalent. I firmly believe that children need effective role models of both sexes. On the other hand, that is way down the list of things that children need (other things being nurturing, security, guidance, modeling of relational skills to name just a few). Given the choice of a healthy gay couple and a dysfunctional heterosexual one, I would rather be raised by the gays.
I support the Hawaii ruling, not because I know any of its details, but because I think it will produce good things.
I will add that appeals to "natural law" or "God's will" on this issue insult my intelligence.
3. Kentucky - December 6, 1996:
The trouble is the judge in Hawaii has put his decision on hold, pending the appeal. Some in Politics thread have had spirited discussions on this subject. They will be glad to find this thread.
4. santacruz - December 6, 1996:
The only reason for governments to accord a body of legal privilege to ANY marriage, same- or opposite-sex, is to further their interest in social stability. Because I believe both straight and gay marriage strengthen social stability, I applaud the Hawaiian judge's decision.
The so called Defense of Marriage Act is the most odious piece of legislation passed by the last Congress and is a blot on President Clinton.
5. Kentucky - December 6, 1996:
santacruz, wasn't that the bill Bill signed in the middle of the night? How much do you think it would have affected his presidential campaign if he had vetoed it? I'm not defending his signing it, just would not have wanted that one issue to have gottenDole elected by reactionaries. I confess to not having reached a well-thought-out stance on this issue. Your post was concise and may just go right to the heart of the matter.
6. wildwood32 - December 6, 1996:
elliottrw are you sure its your intelligence that will be insulted or just your ego merriage without sexual intercourse? how the hell you get here?
7. wildwood32 - December 6, 1996:
so i made a typo
8. santacruz - December 6, 1996:
Kentucky (5) - Clinton's signing of the Defense of Marriage Act was a purely pragmatic (read utterly unprincipled) political act. Gays are 2-6% of the population, depending on whose figures you believe, but their political power is concentrated in a fewbig states including California, New York and Massachusetts, which were already in Clinton's electoral bag. It would have been political suicide to alienate not-so-gay-friendly voters in other states. The only thing he had to lose was his standing among a constituency whose votes he didn't need. It's the way most politicians work.
9. santacruz - December 6, 1996:
wildwood32 (6, 7) - You made more than a typo. You made an incomprehensible post. Just what are you trying to say?
10. wildwood32 - December 6, 1996:
commenting on message #2 got line marriage without sexual intercourse from there i couldn't figure that one out man and women keep the human race going that's what marriage is for isn't it? new to this typing stuff bear with me please
11. santacruz - December 6, 1996:
wildwood32 (10) - Sexual reproduction would keep the human race going with or without marriage. The institution of marriage in every society and time has been primarily concerned with the acquisition of kin and social status and the distribution of property. The reproduction part is almost incidental. Check out a book on marital law and you'll find most of it has to do with property and almost nothing to do with children except, of course, for the question of custody when a marriage ends.
12. 21349mcla - December 6, 1996:
The fraymaster's question, folks, was "why not sanction gay unions"? I say that since we have all kinds of unions--teamsters', hack writers', hotel workers', and garbage workers'--why shouldn't there be a gay union? After all, gays have provided so many entertainment and news stories to the nation in the last twenty years. Honor Tiny Tim. Honor David Ducovney. Honor Ellen Degeneres. Shouldn't all gays receive a living wage for the entertainment they have provided the rest of us? Allons enfants de la patrie...
13. IrvingSnodgrass - December 7, 1996:
ELLIOTTRW (Message #2): Excellent post. It is a good summary of my position on the issue as well. I find your posts consistently intelligent and well-written (and not just because I agree with them). You're my candidate for Best New Fraygrant of the Month.
WILDWOOD32: A couple of hints: one of the beauties of the English language is that it is made more readable by using punctuation and capital letters. You will find these on your keyboard. Typing isn't so hard, and the Fray allows you a preview function. Please try for a little more coherence.
To all: How will the DOMA play out in view of the Hawaii decision? Which position is more legally defensible?
14. ElliottRW - December 7, 1996:
WILDWOOD32
Please reread my post carefully. I indentify two types of marriage--one with children, one without. Clearly, if we exlude adoption and artificial conception methods, sex is necessary for having children. But marriage is more than that, and, as I contend in post #2, children are not the essence of marriage.
IrvingSnodgrass
This is high praise coming from you, since you clearly know about intelligence and good writing.
15. AlexKhan - December 7, 1996:
Fraysters who were in the late Defense of Marriage Act Thread will lament my repetitions, but they need to be made in order to innoculate supporters of gay marriage against mindless irrelevant right-wing attacks.
1) "Marriage was intended to further procreation." Irrelevant Embodied in this reasoning is the intentional fallacy, whereby intention is confused with meaning. Whatever marriage might have been for, that need not BE today. Moreover, if the above were meant as the rationale for marriage, childless, adopting and infertile couples could not possibly justify their marriage. The issue of children in this case is ultimately irrelevant.
2) "Marriage was a method of conjoining properties." Irrelevant for the same reason as #1. It is further irrelevant because incompatible genitals cannot prevent the conjoining of properties. Property arguments can be made FOR recognizing gay marriage, but they can't be made AGAINST it.
3) "Gay marriage is itselfself-contradictory. We can't just redefine marriage." This is the silliest argument around, though extremely often heard. It amounts to nothing more self-serving semantics.
16. AlexKhan - December 7, 1996:
There are only a few lines of argument AGAINST the legal recognition of gay marriage, available to right-wing opponents, as far as I can see.
1) "If gay marriage, then what next?" Liberals are unable to reply from principle to the conservative charge that if gay marriage is recognized, then, logically, incestuous marriage should also be recognized. Of course, liberals will counter that while incestuous procreation results in harm to the offspring, there can be no such issue with gay marriage. But then clever conservatives will come back and ask about incestuous gay couples or a brother-&-sister team willing to get sterilized in exchange for marital recognition. What about them?
2) "The legal recognition of gay marriage will undermine the institution of marriage......
It will erode the already much eroded institution of marriage. Only fewer marriages can result. This will exacerbate social problems, including teen pregnancies, single-parent households, drug use, poverty and crime."
17. AlexKhan - December 7, 1996:
Inevitably, some proponent of the legal recognition of gay marriage will be invoking J. Boswell's book, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." For quite the same reason as that for opposing gay marriage on historical grounds, it is impertinent to adduce the (possible) recognition of gay marriage in the past as an argument for it today. The book, at any rate, is bad scholarship. Its argument ultimately reduces to a small point: the meaning of the Greek term "adelphopoiesis," which simply means the "making of brothers." But Boswell insists the term disguises a now-abandoned Christian sanction for same-sex marriage. What is his reason? That medieval Greek is so different from classical Greek as to conceal this subtlety. There is absolutely no evidence that this word should mean anything more the common practice the world over of installing friends as god-families, as well as the manifestation of the ancient and now forgotten cult of male friendship. In this our prurient, post-Freudian, and sexually suspicious late 20th century we are often handicapped from accurately assessing certain behaviors of the past, especially with regards to male friendship. Also, much too much has been made of homosexuality in the classical age. It began, of course, as a kind Archie-Bunker-vulgarization about toga-wearing fruits. Then, when this image was appropriated by homosexualist-revisionist scholars, Greece and Rome became utopian gay romper rooms. The existence of homosexuality is not the same as its acceptance. There are a lot more censorious and derisive comments regarding homosexuals in classical literature than approving ones. Final note. Some have argued that many American aboriginal tribes tolerated homosexuality. Again, whether or not male Hopis displayed a zest for the perineums of younger male Hopis, does not and cannot bear on the issue of gay marriage today.
18. wildwood32 - December 7, 1996:
I stand corrected
19. ElliottRW - December 7, 1996:
AlexKhan (16)
In reply to point 1), the slippery slope of gay marriage, I can only say "so what?" Incest is clearly defined; we can prohibit it with complete indifference to the institution of marriage. Furthermore, I am not opposed tocreating a "life partnership" arrangement that profers the legal privileges of marriage to any pair of responsible adults, related or not.
In reply to point 2) "undermine the institution of marriage", I have the following comments:
1. How will extending marriage to gays change the benefits that accrue to heterosexual married couples?
2. Why not give it a try and see what happens? We tried prohibition and learned our lesson. We are in the process of trying out universal suffrage, freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms.
20. paulhinr - December 7, 1996:
Holy Toledo! I read the topic posted, "should the govenment sanction gay unions?" and immediately thought of "Gay Auto Workers of America"! Now, I'm from NC and while I'm not particularly fond of Mr. Helms, I'd hate to see him suffer an unnecessary coronary.
I hope he doesn't misinterpret that too, if he ever come surfin' by here - Lord knows he has trouble enough with either subject individually without compounding them.
21. AlexKhan - December 7, 1996:
ELLIOTTRW - Re: Message #19
I hope you weren't being literal-minded and thinking that Message #16 represents MY views? This was for right-wing consumption.
At any rate, yes, we can chuck the argument from consistency in (1) of #16.
As for (2), conservatives regularly argue that the redefinition of marriage will have all kinds of deleterious practical consequences. THIS is what the debate on gay marriage should be, because all else is distracting bunkum masking a mere cultural prejudice.
22. thepageman - December 7, 1996:
Our Government, whether it be state, local, or federal, should not sanction deviant behavior of any type. Homosexual and lesbian behavioris deviant and until recently was considered to be a mental illness by psychiatrists, psychologists, and medical doctors. In the 1960s when prayer was removed from our public schools, those that were for it, said it would make no difference. At the time, the worst disciplinary problems facing the teachers were, note passing, gum chewing, tardiness and on a rare occasion, cheating. in just over 30 years, we have gone from that to murder, rape, extortion and open air drug markets in the school yards. I do not now and never did believe in homosexual bashing. I do believe that our great nation is heading for a downward spin due to political correctness, the acceptance of deviant behavior by the media and the forced removal of religion and religious ideals [Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Islam, ect.] from public discussion. There is not one religion I have found that describes homosexuality and lesbianism as anything but deviant behavior. Students of History, can trace the fall of many Great nations and cultures that came before the U.S. to the acceptance of all types of deviant behavior. The Aztecs, human sacrfice, the RomanEmpire, Sexual deviancy and the persecution of Christians. The Egyptian Empire, sexual deviancy and the persecution of the Christians. I don't think you need to be an Einstein to see the connection between the fall of these onetime great nations and their acceptance of deviant behavior.
23. AlexKhan - December 7, 1996:
THEPAGEMAN - One of the great misfortunes of mankind is that idiocy is not considered a deviant state of being.
24. Toadlips - December 7, 1996:
I am a member of society. Society's values are determined by its members.
As a member of society, I have a duty and obligation to promote ideals and institutions which I feel are beneficial for society as a whole.
I view homosexuality as an aberration, and something which is not beneficial to society. Although I feel sympathy for those who are afflicted with this illness, I will NOT lend credence to it by supporting a homosexual union or "marriage".
25. peterdayton123 - December 7, 1996:
I find it hard to believe that "Political Correctness" has come so far as to even suggest that we grant homosexual behavior the special status , both in Law and our Culture, we give to marriage. We have strayed far beyond tolerance of this "abnormal" behavior. Where do we draw the line? How about sex with 14 year old children? Oh, I'm sorry they are "emancipated minors". Look what that attitude has given us. Homosexuality is not "Gay". It is a tradegy of our society. Homosexuals need our love and forgiveness but not special status in the law. I don't bash anyone. I support Homosexual's right to fair and equal treatment , but feel the heterosexual family should be afforded special status in Law. It is the foundation of our society. At the expence of being labeled a "Gay Basher", I stand in opposition to this proposal. I don't hate gays, I just don't think that homosexuality is or should be afforded the same status we give to heterosexual unions. We shall suffer for several generations from the "no-fault divorce" legislation of the 70's. Making it easy to be selfish and self-centered , we have abandoned a generation of children , all the while rationalizing how we can "do it all". Work, home, career and raising children, we have made our choices. Look at the results. Are we to make the same mistake again? Preservation of " Family Unit" is the single most important social program we need to address. Government should stay out of it completely. We as citizens working within out communities, churches, temples and mosques all agree that family and faith are very fundamantal qualities to a " normal social order".
26. AlRosendale - December 7, 1996:
To Toadlips - I would like to pose a hypothetical situation. You have known me for years. I announce to you that I am gay. What is your reaction? Do the years of acquaintance come to an end? Do you consider me an "aberration"?
I amstill the same person but have just been afraid to admit openly who I have always been. Living a lie is the illness, not being gay. Being gay is something I can not change. It is who I am.
What hurts is that unless his family allows it, I do not have the right to be near my life partner when the end is near, I do not automatically have the right retain those things we have accumulated over the years that others consider to be his possesions and may be my only memories. When you have lived with and loved someone for 20 to 30 years or more, a bond exists. However, under today's laws, that bond counts for nothing if you both happen to be of the same sex. And knowing that there are those that consider you a freak does not make life any easier or less painful.
27. IrvingSnodgrass - December 7, 1996:
AlRosendale (Message #26): Excellent post! I think all too often opponents of "gay unions" neglect the fact that these stable long-term relationships involve individuals who are valuable members of society and not some fringe "deviants" to be shunted aside.
28. jgaylord - December 7, 1996:
AlRosendale's message #26 touched a chord with me. The minister of my church announced that he was gay, after three years with the church. I am ashamed to say that I was upset about this at first. The I realized that, as you said, he is the same caring, loving, wonderful person I have known and loved for three years. Why should I throw that away because his private live is not the same as mine? Currently we have a membership made up of approximately 2/3 heterosexuals and 1/3 homosexuals - some paired, some not. I thoroughly enjoyed attending Gay Night at Disneyland about two years ago, and have a great many dear friends who are gay. Our minister and his partner had a commitment ceremony a year ago, which I was very sorry not to be able to attend.It amazes me that the same people whose main complaint about gay people is that "they are promiscuous" are the ones who are so opposed to gay marriage. Come on, guys. You can't have it both ways. And considering the fact that one of my friends says he knew he was different when he was seven years old, I'd say being gay is about as much of an aberration as having red hair, for instance. People have no say about the way they're born. Let's stop sticking labels on them and get to know them aspeople.
29. AlRosendale - December 7, 1996:
What I find interesting in these posts is that those who harbor such disdain for homosexuality hide behind silly i.d.'s. CB'rs call them "handles". Those who, at the least, are proponents of tolerance seem to not be afraid to use real names. There seems to be a touch of irony there.
30. Kentucky - December 7, 1996:
AlexKhan Message #23 So succinct - glad you didn't waste any words on that one.
31. ACEidson - December 8, 1996:
To debunk the myth that conservatives are unable to see anything other than small-minded views, I would like to stat that I am conservative, and I support gay marriage. I am not homosexual, and cannot fathom what it could be like, but I do know that homosexuals exist, whether even the most denial-ridden repressed homosexuals like it or not. Why not extend the same social responsibilities to these individuals? Perhaps if this status is granted to them in our society, then perhaps some of the more negative social stigmas, such as promiscuity, will begin to vanish and a true responsibility of thier growing culture will begin to form. They are here to stay, and they are the way they are whether they, (or us), like it or not. Why not accept them into our community and, in extending to them the rights, expect them to follow our society's mores. Until we extend this group its rights, they will forever be persecuted as deviants.
32. cigarlaw - December 8, 1996:
While I appreciate and in many cases agree with the assessments regarding the decline of western civilization, the problem here is a conflict of religious and moral beliefs versus the interests of the State.
As I understand the case in Hawaii, thejudge asked a simple question of the Attorney General: What compelling state interest is served by forbidding homosexual marriages? When the question is framed in that light, the issue is narrowed and many of the religious and moral questions are removed from the picture.
State recognition of homosexual marriages does not confer some special right upon homosexuals. To the contrary, it simply grants state recognition to what already happens.
On the other hand, I think a good legal case could be made that there is a compelling state interest to prevent homosexual marrigages and I am interested in reading the court's opinion to see how it dealt with this. Specifically, there is little, except government benefits conferred by a marriage license that may not be conferred by contract or by other legal arrangments. Certainly if one is religious, a marriage license is simply a state recognition of something God has already recognized, and a higher authority has already spoken in that case. On the other hand, the desire to reduce Social Security and health care benefits is a state interest that seems important. The same argument could be used to prevent polygamy, etc.
Recognition of homosexual marrigages seems less threatening to themorality of this country than what we have already done to destroy marriage in this country by eliminating all stigma associated with bastardy and actively encouraging it through our social policies.
33. JohnnyTex - December 8, 1996:
It is NOT sexual discrimination if the government refuses to legally sanction same sex marriages. Your subject heading indicates another nudge to the left in the communications industry. Where is the line drawn for sexual discrimintion ? Do I discriminate if I refuse to allow someone interested in bestiality to work at a zoo ? Should a pedophile be allowed to counsel young people ,especially those in his target group ? Why not allow a S&M enthusiast the opportunity to administer corporal punishment in schools ?
I do not hate anyone,yet there have to be standards for society. And yes,there is such a thing as the "slippery slope". Government approval of same sex marriages in another slide down the decline.
34. paulhinr - December 8, 1996:
Message #33 Right now, the government "approves" of unions involving wife-beaters, child-abusers, and adulterers and will continue to sanction any number of sequential marriages any of them choose, as long as they properly divorce from the previous.
Convicted burglars, people with suspended driver's licenses, bankrupt individuals, and even murderers can marry with the State's fiduciary blessing. Bonnie could have married Clyde. Adolph Hitler could have married Eva Braun here.
So what does it have to do with "standards of society"?
35. mrwarmth - December 8, 1996:
For all you conservatives bellowing to the rafters about "saving" and "strengthening" marriage, I suggest you band together and propose legislation to (a) ban divorce and (b) ban remarriage for those who are already divorced. I find it endlessly sad and amusing that opposition to gay rights is often cast in the mold of "saving marriage" from gays, yet - as any judge, policeman or social worker can tell you - what destroys marriage is divorce, not homosexuality. "The breakdown of the family" is the tale of divorce, not gay couples collecting crystal and listening to Maria Callas on Sunday afternoons. Moreover, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, but he was very strongly against divorce, and condemned most instances of it for the same reason Paul condemns homosexuality: because it violates the creation order mirrored in Adam and Eve. (Matt. 19:4-6). All of which is conveniently ignored by conservatives today.
Of course, you will never see conservatives marching against "special rights" for the divorced, for the simple reason that so many of them have already destroyed their own families through divorce and serial monogamy.
This is an obvious case of scapegoating. Conservatives focus on homosexuality, because it allows them to believe they have moral absolutes that they will adhere to no matter what. Perversely, this then allows them to go an disregard that same morality in their own lives. I think it's time conservatives stopped balancing their moral checkbooks on the backs of gay people.
Thoughts?
36. AlexKhan - December 8, 1996:
MRWARMTH (35) - Excellent post. But I think it's _much_ simpler than you state. I think most right-wingers routinely invoke principle to justify a prejudice they have no idea why they hold. I mean, did you read the crap about deviance and the fall of Rome? There is something wrong with people who think along these lines.
37. Toadlips - December 8, 1996:
Al -- I have read your responses to my posting, and I will give you the reply you have been seeking.
You're absolutely right, there is something that I'm hiding from. I call myself "Toadlips" because I don't want anyone to know my true identity. I have something very important to reveal here.
I know you have only known me for one short posting, but I can't help but feel that we've already developed a strong repoire. Al, I am not a homosexual, but I have been prone to sexual abominations of the highest order.
About two years ago, I went to play "splat-ball" up north, and while the other men chased each other around the "arena", shooting things at each other, I had my eyes on a large and beautiful chicken. Now, I've seen chickens before, but this one was different. Her wings were large and white, her downy feathers pure as snow, and her proud, sharp beak let me know that this chicken had class.
Needless to say, I was so overcome with lust for this chicken that I dropped my gun and consummated the relationship right then and there. I have never had a more fulfilling or satisfying sexual experience in my LIFE.
Now, I've tried "women" before, with limited success, but I prefer white meat to pink. The thing I want you to realize is that this aberration is NOT my fault -- I was born this way, and I think that it is TERRIBLE that society perpetually challenges my species of choice.
In a supposedly "open" society, Iam still surprised to see that such boundaries -- which are so dangerous to a society which promotes personal freedom -- exist between different species. While great steps have been taken to protect the lifestyles of my homosexual brothers, none have been taken to ensure a nurturing environment for species of all types.
It is time for people to realize that we are all beings, and have certain responsibilities to each other and to our environments. Let us all unite, hand to hoof to wing t
38. PseudoErasmus - December 8, 1996:
TOADLIPS
Once, as a young officer, Caesar, as punishment for womanly behavior, was sent down to the farm of his commander's freedmen that he might search for a lost cow and, when found, to drag it back by the tail. Captivated by the sweet and sympathetic face of the heifer, he realized afterwards that he preferred heifers to bulls. Caesar was always grateful to her, who had shown him the righteous path and had urged him to never to feel shame for his fondness for oxen. Thus, for the rest of hislife Caesar was often seen proudly and eagerly wandering the fields in search of her kind.
39. ElliottRW - December 8, 1996:
Toadlips
Sex without consent is rape. Because animals are at least as incapable of informed consent as children, I consider having sex with animals, like having sex with children, rape.
40. alrosendale - December 8, 1996:
Well, from what I can tell these posts are going to prove nothing more than we all have rights to our own opinions. I do not think anyone's viewpoint will be changed.
We just somehow need to understand that we going to have to live with each other and somehow tolerate one another. I think toleration will have to be enough. I am not a pedohile, I do not participate in orgies, I am not polygamous. Unfortunately the stereotype sticks. Unfortunately, there are gays who do perpetuate the stereotype. But there also are straights who are a menace and threat to society and the moral fabric.
But do not stereotype everyone. I am not going to judge anyone's sense of what is right and what is wrong. I know that I am in the minority. We are different, there is no doubt about that, but we are all human. Too many times has history (and the present, also) proven the tragic and disasterous effects of intolerance
41. mrwarmth - December 8, 1996:
Alex Khan: You're right about the Roman Empire thing. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear Christians dragging that old warhorse out of the closet. First of all, most people who appeal to that argument don't know the first thing about Roman history. Just ask them when the Roman Empire fell, and they'll look at you like cattle staring at a new gate.
Even more ridiculous is the assumption that the maintenance of an empire is the goal of morality, such that the fall of an empire built on rapine, plunder gross corruption, and the systematic exploitation of the entire population sends us a cautionary message about maintaining moral standards. Hah!
Why Christians should be concerned about the Roman Empire is an enduring mystery to me. Jesus certainly didn't go around Palestine giving the Roman officials tips on how best to run their war machine. Of course, ROme is important to conservative Christians because their brand of Christianity is really just an imperialistic state religion wearing the fig leaf of Christ's cross. Rome is what they'd like to be, given their druthers, though Rome without homosexuality is like the Catholic priesthood without homosexuality. It hardly seems worth the effort.
42. mrwarmth - December 8, 1996:
And one more thing: The Romans who actually experienced the decline of their empire sensibly blamed Christianity for it. Which I guess must prove incontrovertibly that Christianity is immoral, nicht wahr?
43. LuckyNumber7 - December 8, 1996:
The problem with this issue is it boils down to one simple question. "Are homosexuals born that way?" I think they are not. Until Science can prove to me that "gays" don't choose to act this way, I can not support "gay" marriage. As I said in the Politics thread, this is a deviant behavior that should not be encouraged.
Alex, I find your lack of engagement and rush to insult about the Roman point to be a little beneath you.
44. PseudoErasmus - December 8, 1996:
LUCKYNUMBER - Re: #43
"The problem with this issue is it boils down to one simple question."
This is patently false. The debate about the origin of homosexuality, whether it is natural or not, is completely irrelevant and impertinent to the issue of whether the law should recognize homosexual unions.
As for the question about Rome, I agree with Mr. Warmth and Alex Khan, that to bring up homosexuality even as a minor cause, let alone a major one, of the Fall of the Roman Empire, is ignorant, semi-literate and vulgar.
45. DavidLBangs - December 8, 1996:
Here's a point nobody has raised:
The company I work for allows homosexual couples to have benefits. Every time the employee manual mentions "Spouse" - it also mentions "Same Sex Domestic Partner." People have already raised the issue that this is descriminatory against unmarried heterosexual couples. Why - the logic continues - does the company not award benefits to all domestic partners?
Personally - I think that we have to allow gay marriages so that companies can go back to saying "Spouse." Otherwise companies will just start saying "Domestic Partner", which would be a blow to marriage far greater than any imagined weakening of the institution by allowing gays to partake.
46. LuckyNumber7 - December 8, 1996:
Re:44, PseudoErasmus, I have to disagree. The cause of gay actions is the only thing to consider in debating gay marriages. If it is natural, then the logical thing to do is for the gov't to recognize their union. If it isn't, then gays ought not to havemarriage privileges.
I think Rome fell because of the total decay of leadership. The rulers were weak and allowed too many things to go on that shouldn't have. Rampant homosexuality one among many.
Message #12 MCLA, Are you saying David Ducovney is gay ?!?!? That is a little strange even for the X-files.
47. LuckyNumber7 - December 8, 1996:
Re:45, DavidLBangs, My personal opinion is that companies should not give benefits to ANY partner whom that are not married to. Same sex or not.
48. PseudoErasmus - December 8, 1996:
LUCKYNUMBER7 (43)
"Until Science can prove to me that gays don't choose to act this way, I can not support gay marriage."
I was just reading through the Asian-American thread and noticed your espousal of creationism there. Why would you suddenly listen to science on the nature of homosexuality if it comes up with an answer?
"This is a deviant behavior that should not be encouraged."
Could you please define deviance and state precisely what is wrong with deviance?
49. LuckyNumber7 - December 8, 1996:
Re:48, I use Science only because most people do not seem to want to hear what the Bible has to say, so I figure biting them with their own serpent is a good way to get the point across./// The question in your second paragraph is interesting. I doubt that I would because I do think the Bible supersedes Science. I would, however, rethink it.
As I pointed out in the Politics thread, deviance is defined as an action that goes against the norms/values of the dominant society. Everything from bed wetting7-year-olds to murder is some form of deviance. Not all of it is bad. Many deviant acts have good effects on the society. However, I think the practice of homosexuality is not one of them and it should be understood but not encouraged.
50. jefflavine - December 8, 1996:
The reason why opposite-sex couples do not need coverage by their companies is that they have the ability to wed if they so choose. Gays don't have the opportunity for this choice. If gay marriages were allowed those gay couples living outside of wedlock would obviously not get benefits. The sax-sex benefits concept is borne out of the inability for gays to wed.
By the way, stop taxing gays and maybe we would consider less than equal treatment!
51. LuckyNumber7 - December 8, 1996:
Re:50, jefflavine, Most people are offered insurance through their place of employment. Why can't each member of a gay couple get jobs? I know I don't like paying for others' insurance.
This is a bad arguement for gay marriages. Gay people benefit the same as everyone else in the society in most areas. Next you will be saying not to tax you because you don't have the freedom to murder, speed, or do drugs legally.
52. Kentucky - December 8, 1996:
mrwarmth, I've been noticing your posts in other threads. We could use a fraygrant with a handle (id) like yours over in the Politics thread. Please join us there sometime and add a little warmth.
53. Kentucky - December 8, 1996:
LuckyNumber7, you never cease to amaze me. Your ATTEMPT to define "deviance" was an uneducated one, to say the least.Message #49 BTW, since you mention your post in the Politics thread, may I say that your Message #51 seems to be in direct contrast to your #3543 in Politics thread when you answered PseudoErasmus #3541. You're not even consistent with your confused look at life in the USA.
54. PseudoErasmus - December 8, 1996:
LUCKYNUMBER7 - What has "natural" got to do with it? If something is unnatural, how does it follow that the law should not recognize gay marriage?
I don't think you know _anything_ about Rome. Despite popular (read vulgar) opinion, homosexuality was no more rampant or accepted in Greece and Rome than it is today. This widespread existence and recognition of homosexuality is not asserted just by opponents of gay marriage; rather also by homosexuals themselves.
At any rate, it's wrong, wrong, wrong whoever argues it. It's funny, this bizarre alliance between hicks (who think Romans were a bunch of fags) and homosexual activists (who think Rome was gay heaven).
55. Kentucky - December 8, 1996:
A reminder for LuckyNumber7 and other like-minded individuals: The Constitution, not The Bible, is the document of reference under which this country operates. If you wish to apply The Bible to your own life, that's great and I'm sure you will lead an exemplary life by doing so. But please understand that you do not have the right to apply your Biblical interpretations to your fellow citizens.
In yourMessage #51 you say, "Gay people benefit the same as everyone else in the society in most areas." In whch areas would you be willing to not benefit. Who chooses areas for you or areas for gays?
56. webwalker - December 8, 1996:
Hmm. Bed-wetting as deviant behavior, now that's one to ponder. I think that's a bit intolerant which is part of the issue.
Congress and the White House were able to mask their true agenda by taking a popular action. Their primary concern in all of this was the effect on tax revenue since granting legal sanction to homosexual marriage might place several in a more beneficial tax bracket. No study thus far has actually determined the exact financial impact.
Be that as it may, homosexuality, in most parts of the country is no longer a crime. The Constitution grants equal protection under the law. On that basis alone, the "Defense of Marriage Act" would appear to be unconstitutional.
We all have our opinions about deviance and morality but that's a question of one's own conscience, your beliet system and your religion (NO, I DON'T MEAN THAT TO CONDONE INCEST, RAPE OR PEDOPHILIA). Heterosexuals participate in many of the same sexual activities as homosexuals the only difference being it is with someone of the opposite sex..
If religion and morality are brought into this you also have to condemn sex between unmarried heterosexuals not to mention tobacco, gambling and alcohol. Homosexuals are contributing membersof society, it we are going to extract tax dollars from them, do business and participate in all manner of commerce with them, they are entitled to all the benefits our society has to offer.
*The same is true in any corporate setting. The reason employee manuals mention "spouse" and "same sex domestic partner" is because lacking any other legal distinction this is the only way corporations can grant legal status in terms of medical and other benefits.
57. jimwhiting - December 8, 1996:
Opposing gay marriage is not necessarily bigoted. It may not be intended to denigrate people who are clearly as normal as anyone else (such as that is). If people who cannot reproduce their kind compose a consistent 2% or so of the population in every nation and civilization, they are obviously part of our common genetic endowment.
My interest is not in depriving any group of state-sponsored benefits, but in reducing the benefits for which we are compelled to kneel andbeg. Free-market cohabitation is preferred by almost as many heterosexuals as marry, and they succumb to matrimony only when they (a) get pregnant or (b) get tired of introducing the partner as "er, um".
If one believesthat marriage is for children - and the reverse - one could certainly object to the expansion of the paternalism of the state to those to whom reproduction is biologically impossible. Note that all of the benefits of marriage, legal and economic, are available to cohabitors, with the aid of lawyers. Probably more cheaply than a lot of marriages. And if you think you want to cut down on legal process, just watch 100 legal test cases bloom with gay marriage.
It's true that marriage is more than children, but that does not depend on state sanction. In my opinion, the intimacy, trust, and interdependency are characteristics of the relationship, not of the formal acknowledgment by the state.
The argument that because a good marriage is a good thing, therefore every marriage ought to be state-sanctioned, is as fallacious as that saying that since abortion is a sin, it ought also to be a crime.
58. PseudoErasmus - December 8, 1996:
JIMWHITING - What on earth is your point? Your post #57 lacks a backbone.
59. ACEidson - December 8, 1996:
AlexKhan and mrwarmth: In reference to your missives Message #35 and Message #36, I find your immediate hostility towards right-wingers interesting. I thought that liberalism was supposed to provide a foundation for all thoughts to exist,and that one of the big arguments over conservatism was that it extended a "exclusive" authority over morality. Sounds like the tables are turned. I said "let's give them the rights" and still you found a way for me to be wrong. Wow. The reason I call myself conservative, is because I fell that people should be allowed to do what they want to without excessive governmental interference. I have my morality, just as you have yours, and I say I should adapt mine to let these people enjoy the rights and coveniences our society provides. How did I screw that up? As far as banning divorce, It should go along the same lines as abortion. Its a reprehensible thing, but who am I to deny someone's right to have a different veiw? Just don't smear it in my face. Some people just can't be satisfied.
60. AlexKhan - December 8, 1996:
ACEIDSON - Re: Message #59
Not being a liberal, I had no idea that "liberalism was supposed to provide a foundation for all thoughts to exist and that one of the big arguments over conservatism was that it extended an 'exclusive' authority over morality." Even if I were a liberal, I couldn't find an instance of where a "foundation for all thoughts to exist" was denied or not provided. Moreover, I did not think you were wrong about anything. I did read and do recall your post. And I did not opine about it. My rebuke was limited to "_some_ right-wingers." If I had found anything you said objectionable _and_ worth answering, you would have heard from me and you would have been addressed by name.
61. peterdayton123 - December 8, 1996:
Webwalker's message #56 speaks of political correctness! Radical Individualism speaks the language of "If you are a consenting Adult ...It's OK to do Anything!" Wrong my friend. This is hedonism! Read Robert Bork's book! We are a society so caught up in ourselves marriage and commitment have become doormats to the Modern Liberal Ideology of "self". The biblical principle of "flesh" and which God to Worship seems applicable here as it illustrates our self worship indulgence and greed. All of the worlds major religions respect the marriage contract and condone sexual relations ONLY within that contract. We seemed to have lost all shame.
62. Rainlover - December 8, 1996:
If it were not for AIDS, the gays would not be so demanding and the anti-gays would not be so worried about state sanctioned gay marriage. Should companies and government take on the responsibility for the gay spouse who is infected with the virus? Thesame question arises with gays (and hence, married gays) in the military. I am a traditionalist, happily heterosexual and happily married, but I believe in freedom, live and let live. I am against Federal sanction of marriage, but if Hawaii or any other state should permit it, what's the harm?
63. ACEidson - December 9, 1996:
AlexKhan: Re:Message #60 Whew! You're a hot potato! But, fair enough. Your statments were accurate. I will take it further, though, and say that there IS a great amount of "moral-hogging" going on within the right-wing movement. It is embarrassing for me. Really, though, it isn't right-wing to be that to me. It's what I call wrong. I think that both sides of the house can improve with a dose of progressiveness. But, perhaps I'm unqualified, here. I don't inderstand Homosexuality any more than I understand fans of the Dallas Cowboys. Yet, I respect their right to disagree.
64. mrwarmth - December 9, 1996:
First, some replies:
ACEidson's thoughts on the true substance of Liberalism confuse defending one's right to express an opinion with refusing to disagree with anyone's opinion. LIberalism has usually been for the former, but never the latter. Indeed, it is precisely the healthy exchange of conflicting opinions that defines a liberal society. I'm sure you're all happy to know that you can now freely disagree with Mr. Edison's profound opinions without endangering the very foundations of public discourse. Whew!
The Roman Empire: I'm still reading a lot of hot air being blown about the thoughts, habits and political downfall of the Roman aristocrats, with nary a citation to back any of it up. Nor has anyone answered my question as to the relevance of the fall of Rome to modern moral debate. I'm sure you've all just been afraid of falling into ACEidson's clever trap by disagreeing with me. If so, see above.
Whether the ancient Greeks or Romans accepted homosexuality or not is completely irrelevant. Neither did they, or any other ancient society, accept that slavery was wrong, that women were the equals of men, or, for that matter, that free market capitalism was a good thing. Yet no one would ever use that as evidence that ending slavery, emancipating women and selling Chevy's are wrong.
We need to free ourselves from the myth that the Greeks and Romans were morally superior to us. The ancient world was a snakepit of cruelty, immorality, and brutality, where infanticide, genocide, pederasty and slavery were practiced without a qualm. Though apparently their PR was first rate, since it is still fooling people down to this very day.
65. mrwarmth - December 9, 1996:
Second:
Most of the debate in this thread seems to center around whether or not gay people should have the RIGHT to marry, but I haven't seen much discussion among gay people as to whether or not they should want to. After all, freedom from marriage is the only "special right" we actually enjoy, so why are we so eager to give it up? Equality in misery is not the equality I am looking for. Do we really want to inflict on ourselves the sordid realities of the divorce court? Do you really want to see your Herb Ritts prints divided up as community property? Is it really worth all the struggle just so we have the right to kidnap our children and spirit them off to Alabama, even if we'll have to adopt them first before we can?
I think not.
In any case, what straight people don't seem to realize is that, once granted the right to marry, gay people will turn out to be as conservative as they come. You will see weddings the like of which have not been seen since Grace Kelley flounced off to Monaco with ice in her eyes and Dior on her hips. The suburbs will fill up with minivans sporting the rainbow flag decal on their bumpers and little yellow "Caution! Baby bear on board!" signs gleaming malevolently from the rear window. Donna Reed, we hardly knew ye.
Please, all you bigoted know-nothing Christians out there, for once do us a favor: save us from our ourselves! I'm counting on you.
66. AlexKhan - December 9, 1996:
I would like to reiterate the arguments made by myself, Mr. Warmth and PseudoErasmus (and make a few additional comments).
1) Whatever the status of homosexuality in antiquity or in any historical period, it does _not_ bear on whether the State should recognize gay marriage.
2) Whatever the findings of anthropology or biology or any science regarding the origin, nature and cause of homosexuality, it does _not_ bear on whether the State should recognize gay marriage.
3) However more or less promiscuous a homosexual might be than a heterosexual, it does _not_ bear on whether the State should recognize gay marriage.
4) Whether or not homosexuality is deviant, it does _not_ bear on whether the State should recognize gay marriage.
5) AIDS does not bear on this issue. If it did, then it should be an argument _for_ legal recognition of gay marriage, rather than _against_.
In fact, the only thing that matters in this issue is whether the legal recognition of homosexual marriage will harm society in any way. I just cannot see how this can happen.
67. ElliottRW - December 9, 1996:
Rainlover (62)
Good point about AIDS. While AIDS really cannot be the basis of any "ought" arguments, the financial stakes are significant. The abuse of just institutions for profit revolts me, and marrying for the sole purpose of obtaining health insurance surely constitutes abuse.
Of course, this is just an issue of degrees; anyone with a health problem is capable of the same kind of abuse, regardless of sexual preference.
Perhaps the participants of the Fray could develop some creative suggestions for stopping such abuse without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
AlexKhan
Keep up the good work. With a heavy-hitter like you on the thread I can just sit back an watch the fireworks.
68. ErichVanDussen - December 9, 1996:
Alex, I agree with you completely. I don't understand the nature of homosexual attraction, but I'm not stupid enough to think that these folks are walking around lying about how they really feel in order to piss everyone off and make life more difficult for themselves in our society. Their feelings are as genuine and mysterious to them as those experienced by heterosexuals, and deserve just as much respect.
So, then, what's the point? Homosexuals are EXACTLY the same as heterosexuals in every way -- and are owed the same rights and privileges, period. Those who irrationally bring up AIDS in their "Defense of Marriage" defense reveal their true agenda: gays make them morally uncomfortable, and darn it why won't they just go away?
Atrue "Defense of Marriage" act would protect the institution from people who get married unwisely -- in an effort to curb the abysmal divorce rate that has so devalued the significance of two people committing to each other for life. I'd much rather see a hundred happy gay marriages than even one more unhappy, divorce-bound straight one.
69. LuckyNumber7 - December 9, 1996:
KY, Message #53, Is this another one of your "oblivious" posts? You seem to be unable to grasp the point. Allow me to expand it for you. I will quote you from my Sociology text book. "Deviance: the violation of rules or norms.""Deviants: people who violate rules, as a result of which others react negatively to them." Sounds pretty close to my definiton to me. Next time you call someone "uneducated", you should be sure of your own facts.
If you READ my post #3543 in "Politics" then you will note I say I don't care whom people DATE. There is a difference between dating and marriage even in Kentucky, right?
Message #55 I have not now, nor have I ever tried to force my "Biblical interpretations" on anybody. Thank you. It is a one basis of my political ideas. If you don't like that-tough.
I totally don't understand what you are attempting to ask me when you say "In whch areas would you be willing to not benefit. Who chooses areas for you or areas for gays?" If you are asking me who chooses who can be married and who can't, then the answer is rather obvious, the society through gov't does. If this isn't what you are asking, then please restate the question.
70. LuckyNumber7 - December 9, 1996:
Re:56, webwalker, It was JUST an example.
Message #54, PseudoErasmus, I am not going to argue history anymore despite your gross generalizations. You see it one way and I another. ///As I stated before, if the act is natural then it would seemlogical for society to condone said action. I don't think society should recognize these acts because of previous reasons stated.
71. elpocho2 - December 9, 1996:
The point that I find so overlooked is that the clergy is marrying same sex couples. People are being married. The question is - should the state sanction the unions. On this continent - same sex unions were accepted until the wacko Christians showed up! Now that there is some sanity from the Judeo-Christian clergy - we should once again acknowledge the reality of same sex unions. Personally, I think that we need to work on the legal notion of marriage for both straight and gay couples. Perhaps moving toward a situation in which we create a contract that deals with the legal aspects of marriage/union -- with the ability to revise the contract. A sort of pre-nup that the state acknowledges dealing with the kids, inheritance, divorce, etc.
I wonder how freudian a slip it was for Luckynumber7 aka Magiknumbeliever7 to end up being number 69 in this thread. 8-}# c/s
72. ElliottRW - December 9, 1996:
LuckyNumber7
According to that definition of deviance, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and (dare I say it) Jesus Christ were flaming deviants.
73. Kentucky - December 9, 1996:
LuckyNumber7, I know nothing else to say. I stand by my posts 53 & 55.
74. mnjperry - December 9, 1996:
"If one believes that marriage is for children - and the reverse - one could certainly object to the expansion of the paternalism of the state to those to whom reproduction is biologically impossible." --jimwhiting (Post# 57)
But marriage is already available to couples for whom reproduction is biologically impossible. If there was ever a fertility requirement for a marriage license in any U.S. state, it has long since been abandoned. Couples who cannot have or choose not to have children get married every day, and I have heard no suggestion from anyone opposing same-sex marriage that childless heterosexual marriages are in any sense invalid or should be made illegal.
"Note that all of the benefits of marriage, legal and economic, are available to cohabitors, with the aid of lawyers. Probably more cheaply than a lot of marriages. And if you think you want to cut down on legal process, just watch 100 legal test cases bloom with gay marriage." --jimwhiting (Post #57)
I think this is simply wrong. Many of the legal benefits of marriage described in the article about same-sex marriage in "The Gist" would be difficult or impossible for unmarried couples to obtain no matter how good their lawyer is. I think you have your argument about "legal process" backward. If gay couples were allowed to marry legally, many of the benefits that they now have to fight for in court would be provided to them automatically. Gay marriage would likely reduce this kind of expensive and time-consuming legal activity, not increase it.
75. cabinfever - December 9, 1996:
Ice cream is ice cream and frozen yogurt is frozen yogurt. You can *call* it ice cream if you wish but it ain't ice cream.
Likewise for marriage - a marriage is between a man and a woman - period.
The solution here obvious - the state should not be in the business of approving marriages, lifestyles, preferences, etc. If you want to get married or bonded or mated or whatever, do it yourself. If you wish the sanction of a private institution then do it through them. If you wish to sign over rights to your property and/or body, then file the necessary legal documents.
But do NOT corrupt the meaning of a word in an attempt to force me to subsidize your preferences or lifestyles or whatever. If I am an employer and I wish to providebenefits (at *my* expense) to my employee's spouses (in the normal sense), do not legally redefine the meaning of the word "marriage" in an attempt to extract money from me against my will.
Getting down to brass tacks, money is the root of this issue. Love of same-sex partners is not the problem; love of other people's money is. If the financial disadvantages of marriage outweighed the benefits this would be a non-issue.
Regards, Paul Morgan
76. ElliottRW - December 9, 1996:
cabinfever(75)
I appreciate your financial stake in this issue. When I was single, I was quite irritated by my employer's failure to give me the additional $3000-4000 in compensation that my baby-bearing coworkers received. If the issue is financial fairness, should we revoke benefits reserved for only married people, or only for women, or only for people with children?
77. LeeIdaho - December 9, 1996:
Message #32 Cigar: About the contract idea: If we were to make marrage only religious and all else civil then the idea would work. The civil and financial could be state sponsored and open to either "straight" or "gay" (for lack of better euphenisms). As it stands now even with some company's granting "benefits" to same sex partners, see what ire this has raised. Live-in couples have the opportunity to go to the court house and get a marrage license, go to a justice of the peace and get married and then reap the benefits inherent thereto. Same sex live-in couples do not have this option available to them.Message #62Message #67 getting health care to cover aids could be just as well done by "straight" couples.
78. ACEidson - December 9, 1996:
mrwarmth: Re Message #64: I'm not sure what your argument with me is exactly, but it's painfully obvious your reading what you want to from my posts. I have not made any references to Greeks, Romans, or any other previous civilization, so Iwould prefer not to be contained in that criticism. My "clever trap" as you put it was my disagreement that someone of a conservative bent couldn't understand, appreciate, or see something other that a rightist fanatic Christian's. I specifically intend not to impose any morality whether it be from this time or any other. I agree with you wholeheartedly that we need to toss the fantastic idea that the Romans and the Greeks were superior. Plently to learn from them, yes, but hardly a culture worth mirroring today. We are on new ground here, and new rules have to be made. I'm all for it. Nonetheless, if its just argument you want, continue taking the potshots and I'll meet you toe to toe. I think we agree on more than you realize.
79. ACEidson - December 9, 1996:
AlexKhan ReMessage #66: I agree with your points. In fact, It is possible that it is the restriction of these rights that is harming society today. Society's unwillingness to adapt to changing circumstances tends to be its downfall.
80. mnjperry - December 9, 1996:
"Likewise for marriage - a marriage is between a man and a woman - period." --cabinfever (Post #75)
I think this is what virtually all opposition to same-sex marriage boils down to in the end - the desire to define legal marriage exclusively as the union of one man and one woman. All the other arguments are basically just attempts to rationalize this view and, in my opinion, do not stand up under scrutiny. But I think the question then becomes: *Why* must marriage be limited in this way? Why is it any more just to deny a marriage license to a same-sex couple than it is to deny one to, say, a mixed-race couple? What purpose is served by excluding gay people in this way?
81. LuckyNumber7 - December 9, 1996:
Re:80, MJN, Homosexual couples are not benefiting the society in any way that they can't do single. They can not reproduce, and in my opinion, are not good parents because they don't have two different role models and they can't show differences between the sexes. Which is important in a child's early years.
Message #72, ElliottRW, I am sorry for the miscommunication. I said in the "Politics" thread that some deviance is good for the society. I thought I said it here, my mistake. Yes,you are right. Jesus, ML King, Jr., etc. would be deviants. The question in this instance is where society draws the line.
Message #73, This is typical of those in your line of thought, KY.
82. mnjperry - December 9, 1996:
"Re:80, MJN, Homosexual couples are not benefiting the society in any way that they can't do single." --luckyNumber7 (#81)
Really? In what way does a heterosexual couple that cannot have children and has no desire to adopt any benefit society in a way they cannot do as single people? Do you also wish to deny marriage licenses to these couples?
"They can not reproduce, and in my opinion, are not good parents because they don't have two different role models and they can't show differences between the sexes. Which is important in a child's early years." --luckyNumber7 (#81)
Since when has the granting of a marriage license been contingent on being a good role model for kids? There are probably millions of married people today who are lousy role models for their kids, yet no one suggests that they be denied the right to marry. Do you really believe that two really good gay parents are worse role models forkids than two really bad straight parents? In any case, marriage and parenting are separate things. What relevance does being a good role model for kids have to a couple--straight or gay--that has no desire to have kids?
83. PseudoErasmus - December 9, 1996:
LUCKYNUMBER7
History is not a matter of mere opinion. Some opinions are superior to others. In fact, what makes an opinion valuable or interesting or worthy is argument, facts and cogency. You have none. Gross generalization? Please, YOU are the one who's engaging in the Archie Bunker fanatasy of prancing homosexuals in Roman circuses. The problem with you is that you do not know HOW to construct an argument. Let's accept your silly history, that one of the reasons Rome fell was rampant homosexuality. So what? What is the connection between legally sanctioning gay marriage and the fall of Rome due to homosexuality? Are you saying that legalizing gay marriage would lead to rampant homosexuality? There is already as many or as few homosexuals as there can be, whether or not marriage is an option to them. As Alex Khan and others have argued, you are going to have to establish - yes, establish - that legalizing gay marriage will result in harm of some kind. STATE the harm, damn it.
84. AlexKhan - December 9, 1996:
In Message #66, I listed a number of arguments _against_ the legal recognition of marriage between homosexuals which are _invalid_. In light of recent defecations in this thread, let me make some addenda.
5) The status of homosexuality in any other culture does _not_ bear on whether the State should recognize gay marriage.
6) Whatever the original purpose of marriage, it does _not_ bear on whether the State should recognize gay marriage.
7) The issue of procreation does _not_bear on whether the State should recognize gay marriage. As MJNPERRY has pointed out, one cannot argue that homosexuals don't benefit society because they don't procreate, and go on to justify to childless and infertile couples.
8) The definitionof the word "marriage" is irrelevant. This is the angels-on-a-needlepoint argument.
85. LuckyNumber7 - December 9, 1996:
Re:83, PseudoErasmus, Ah, the calm, soft reasoning of Liberals. I almost thought it was a subtle breeze blowing past my computer screen.
The generalizations to which I refer are "hick" and the like. Which, by their very definition, are grossmisstatements and generalize your political opposites into uncomfortable positions, however untrue they may be.
I agree that saying gays are the reason for the fall of the Roman empire is silly. I never made such an arguement. I said it was ONE example of how the gov't let things go and basicly did not care.
The only "harm" I see is an abstract one which I have tried to communicate many times. That is, sanctity of marriage will be destroyed. Ka-put. I find that unacceptable. For a financial arguement, see Message #75. I couldn't have said it better myself.
86. PseudoErasmus - December 9, 1996:
LUCKYNUMBER7
In #85, you say, "I agree that saying gays are the reason for the fall of the Roman empire is silly. I never made such an arguement. I said it was ONE example of how the gov't let things go and basicly did not care." You are amazing. In #84, you said: "Let's accept your silly history, that ***one*** of the reasons Rome fell was rampant homosexuality."
As for your comment about sanctity of marriage, please be more specific. What does that mean? That fewer heterosexuals will get married as a result of legalizing gay marriage? Or what? What is going to happen if "marriage" is redefined to include homosexual unions? What is exactly sacrosanct about marriage that it must not apply to homosexuals under any circumstances?
Re: financial argument. #75 is not your post. Please repost or point me to the right place.
87. LuckyNumber7 - December 9, 1996:
Re:82, MJN, Well, "good' and "bad" are subjective to say the least. On the whole, hetero couples make better parents/role models than do homo couples./// Damn, but that first point is a good one. Hadn't thought of that. I can only say thatwe are not debating current law but rather a new proposed one. (But that isn't a good counter-arguement, really.) I will have to ponder this.
Alex, just because something, does not make it so. (and I thought Montespan was smug....)
88. LuckyNumber7 - December 9, 1996:
Re:82, MJN, Well, "good' and "bad" are subjective to say the least. On the whole, hetero couples make better parents/role models than do homo couples./// Damn, but that first point is a good one. Hadn't thought of that. I can only say thatwe are not debating current law but rather a new proposed one. (But that isn't a good counter-arguement, really.) I will have to ponder this.
Alex, just because you say something, does not make it so. (and I thought Montespan was smug....)
89. LuckyNumber7 - December 9, 1996:
Darn, I thought I caught that in time. Disregard #87. Thank you.
90. cabinfever - December 9, 1996:
re: Message #76
"If the issue is financial fairness, should we revoke benefits reserved for only married people, or only for women, or only for people with children?" {quote from #76}
There is an assumption here that I reject - namely that "we have the right to revoke benefits" therefore the question is "should we revoke benefits". It quite simply is not the government's money and therefor not their perogative.
Regards, Paul Morgan
91. LuckyNumber7 - December 9, 1996:
Message #82, Let's review for a second. Post #84 is AlexKhan's post-not mine. Secondly, the quote is YOURS from Message #83. Quit getting so frantic and pay attention.
Why should I restate what was said so well in Message #75? I think folks get rather tired of repetition.
Personal Opinion Time!! I think marriage is a beautiful thing between a man and a woman. It shows their commitment to each other and their willingness to start a family. To allow gays to marry ruins the meaning. Again, my opinions. No facts to back this up! And no, I don't think less Heterosexuals will marry if gay marriage is acknowledged.
92. cabinfever - December 9, 1996:
RE: Message #80
Your first point is well taken - the definition of marriage is critical to the issue. Your second point, however, is focused on the "why the status quo" when it is more interesting to ask "why the change". There is no reason why marriage cannot be redefined; it is not an issue of justice nor exclusion. While there is merit to accuracy in definition (ergo NEWSPEAK) - I only care about what those who are trying to redefine it are attempting to achieve.
If you will bear with a silly exercise:
"*Why* must marriage be limited in this way? Why is it any more just to deny a marriage license to a same-sex couple than it is to deny one to, say, a mixed-race couple? What purpose is served by excluding gay people in this way? " - quote from #80
*Why* must ice cream be limited in this way? Why is it any more just to deny the title of ice cream to frozen yogurt than it to deny it to, say, a frozen custard? What purpose is served by excluding frozen yogurt in this way?
The response of course is "Nothing at all...unless you wish to buy ice cream."
Regards, Paul Morgan
93. mnjperry - December 9, 1996:
re:#92 (cabinfever): Well, ice cream and frozen yoghurt are different things, and it serves our purposes to recognize and act on that distinction sometimes, so we define separate words in our language to refer to them. This allows someone who wants, say, ice cream, to say, "I'd like some ice cream, please" and to get what he wants (ice cream) instead of what he doesn't want (frozen yoghurt, or anything else that isn't ice cream).
What purpose is served by denying a marriage license to gay people?
As to your question, "Why the change?" Because gay people form relationships with one another that are the same for them as heterosexual relationships are for straight people, and because the legal recognition of those relationships is as important to them as it is to straight people. Gay people who want to marry do so for essentially the same reasons as straight people do. If society allows straight people to marry, why shouldn't it also allow gays to marry? This is the fundamental question. Simply saying, "Marriage is for a man and woman. Period" does not answer it, any more than saying "Marriage is for a man and a woman of the same race. Period" was a valid response to people who were fighting anti-miscegenation laws in the 60s.
94. webwalker - December 9, 1996:
peterdayton123-Re #61
My post spoke not of polical correctness nor of radical indiviualism. It spoke of the law, most specifically the Constitution. The Constitution grants equal protection under the law; Robert Bork knows a little about that. Unless homosexuality is declared illegal it is unconstitutional to deny rights to homosexuals granted to heterosexuals in our society.
They are contributing members of our society. They pay taxes, they are involved in commerce. Your sense of morality doesn't extend to not taking tax money from them or not taking their money in exchange for goods and services, does it? It doesn't extend to denying them jobs, does it? Your sense of morality doesn't advocate putting homosexuals in jail or maikinghomosexuality a crime, does it?
If you espouse the view of the church or all religions it seems to me you are expecting the law to impose your morality or their morality on those you perceive the church has failed to reach. Isn't that the church's problem? Don't blame me it you feel your concepts or the moral concepts of the church have failed to reach some members of society.
In the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, Christians used exactly that justification to regain the Holy Land from the Moslems. Perhaps you're familiar with the "Crusades" to which the Pope gave his sanction.
So, whose view of religion are we talking about here, yours, mine or ours. My religion teaches compassion even to those who may be non-believers and that means they may have a different moral code than my own. However, if they haven't broken society's laws or intentionally brought harm to others it is not my place to judge. I can't begin to understand what attracts one man to another but a homosexual can't understand how I can be attracted to a women.
95. webwalker - December 9, 1996:
peterdayton123 reply to #61 continued.
Robert Bork is very quick to condemn the press, film, TV, magazines and music but he says almost nothing about guns and bullets which permeate our society the same as candy on Halloween. He's big on infringing on the freedom of speech but has nothing to say about the need for greater gun regulation.
In the name of religion a PRO-LIFER KILLS a doctor for peforming abortions and I've never seen pro-lifers march in front of gun retailers or try to shut down manufacturers and I've never seen them organize demonstrations about the need to regulate guns.
If your stnace holds for homosexuals it holds for heterosexuals who have sex without benefit of clergy....Marriage! If religion, family and the home have failed to meet the expectations of you or Robert Bork, don't expect the law to step in and extract penalties or cast judgement on issues and lives where only God is qualified.
LuckyNumber7 If bedwetting is an example of how you define deviance it doesn't seem to me your argument has much substance. As I said, I think that's a bit intolerant which is certainly part of the issue.
96. alrosendale - December 9, 1996:
To the majority of you this whole issue is nothing more than an academic exercise to show off your inflated egos. I live the discrimination everyday. To me it is up-close and personal. I just want to be treated with respect and equality. Don't tell me homosexuality is a disease. IT IS NOT!!! It is the way I have always been and I am content.
You all pass judgement on something you know nothing about. Homosexuality is not going away no matter how much you debate and how convoluted your discussions get. As soon as this topic is no longer the "hot button" you will go on to whatever is hot at the time.
I sure hope you all find the answers. In the mean time I'll go on living my life the way I always have.
Well folks! I'm out of here. Have fun!!!
97. LuckyNumber7 - December 9, 1996:
Re:95, webwalker, Errrrrrr. If you are going to rebut my arguements, please do so within the context in which they were presented. I said 7-YEAR-OLD bedwetters. I think I wet the bed til I was 3 or 4.
Re:96, Well, that was interesting. Who said they wanted gays to "go away"? If you can't discuss it like an adult, then I suppose it is good you are "out of here".
98. webwalker - December 9, 1996:
LuckyNumber7 #97
I'm not sure it gets you off the hook but I admit, I missed the 7 year old part of your comment. At the very least. I would think your own experience with juvenile incontinence would have called for enough tolerance to not have made the reference and, perhaps, prompt you to a little more tolerance on this topic.
Having seen your posts in many threads, I never thought I would agree with you about anything but #96. alrosendale is not only a bit cowardly in his response, he is also presumptuous to assume he is the only person here dealing with or who has dealt with descrimination.
99. LuckyNumber7 - December 9, 1996:
Re:98, Webs, Come on and cut me a break! I am tolerant of bedwetters. Just forget I mentioned it.
Something we can agree on!
100. webwalker - December 9, 1996:
LuckyNumber7
Consider it forgetten.
Don't forget, we agreed on #96 alrosendale as well.
101. LuckyNumber7 - December 9, 1996:
Truely the world is a better place!!
102. elpocho2 - December 9, 1996:
Again -- clergy are marrying Gay couples! Yet MagikNum7 and the other haters refuse to acknowledge that we are talking about people loving and wanting to act on that human quality. WE are talking about allowing people to be married that LOVE each other. There is nothing wrong in sanctioning such unions. I find it amazing that MagikNUm7 insists that gay couples cannot love children. I have not found this to be the case -- and I have had a number of gay & lesbians friends that have chosen to have akids...my experience goes back to the early 70's. Yes MagikNum7 -- those gay and lesbians have been makin' babies and adopting children for a long time! c/s
103. springerj - December 9, 1996:
Let's separate church and state.
The problem here is that "marriage" is a religious institution, which has somehow worked its way into our laws. Separate them. Let "marriage" be the province of religions, and they can define the rules any way they want; that's religious freedom. But the state should define the qualifications for its economic benefits differently, and it should have nothing to do with religion.
Frankly, I think the state is benefited by the establishment of family units instead of isolated individuals. If 2 people live together and take care of each other, that's good. If 6 people do it, that's better. If 10 people do it, you've got yourself a 19th century family, from grandma to the grand-kids! What republican could be against that?
Families are good. The government should encourage the formation of family units that take care of each other. It should make no difference whether its a man and a woman, a man and his aging father, a man and a another man, or a grandmother and her grandchild.
The reform we need isn't recognition of "same sex marriages"; it's recognition of real family units: two or more people living together and pooling resources. It should not matter what age, sex, or number of people are included.
J.
104. cabinfever - December 10, 1996:
Message #84
Your points 5, 6, & 7 are quite legitimate (although I would quibble with the latter half of #7 - "benefitting society" is an artificial concept used to justify meddling in other peoples lives.)
Point 8, however, is the crux of the matter. Regardless of the noble and high-minded principles being espoused, the actual intent of legalizing gay marriage is to increase the cash flow. I will be the first to argue that if there is a money flow from the governmentit should be neutral in every respect - even to the point there being no concept of a "legal" marriage. But the private sector is a completely different matter. If the gay marriage supporters were as concerned with other's "rights to give" as they are with their "rights to get" and added an addendum to the law such as "Of course, we do not wish to force anyone to support something they do not agree with (diversity and all that); therefore a company or individual has every right to define a spouse as they wish", I would be less cynical.
Regards, Paul Morgan
105. ElliottRW - December 10, 1996:
CabinFever(104)
This post clarifies some of the confusing (to me) comments you made earlier. It seems that your position is to abolish any government recognition (taxation, interference, etc.) of social institutions--and you see the gay marriage issue as a symptom of this larger issue.
An interesting thesis. For you, it would seem, that even posting to this thread constitutes tacit admission that government has any role whatsoever in the institution of marriage.
While I appreciate your forthright and civil opinions, I can't help thinking that we might be better off starting a new thread to discuss your end of the issue, and leave this thread for those who believe government does have a constructive role to play in social institutions like marriage..
106. AlexKhan - December 10, 1996:
CABINFEVER - Re: Message #104
Please employ reason, not mysticism. I have no idea what on earth you are saying. I don't think I should have to meditate for years before grasping the kernel of enlightenment in your post. You have misunderstood point [7] in Message #84. In no way does it countenance the idea that gay marriage must _benefit_ society in order for it to be recognized. I argued that the reverse argument - that gay marriage oughtn't to be recognized because it doesn't benefit society in some way - was invalid. Invalidating the reverse of an argument doesn't amount to supporting the argument! "... the actual intent of legalizing gay marriage is to increase the cash flow." Which hat you draw this out of? "Money flow...should be neutral in every respect - even to the point there being no concept of a legal marriage." Why? I can understand why revenue-collecting should in most instances be as neutral as possible with respect to distorting economic activity, but surely the revenue aspect of marriage is fairly insignificant. Does the tax code really influence people's marital behavior? Probably not. Itried _really_ hard to locate the logic in the 2nd half of your last paragraph. Never managed it. "Of course, we do not wish to force anyone to support something they do not agree with (diversity and all that); therefore a company or individual has every right to define a spouse as they wish." Force? How is the state recognition of gay marriage forcing anybody to do anything?
107. Graybeard - December 10, 1996:
Poor Lucky#7. After a few days of getting beat up, all he/she is left with is "personal opinion" (Message #91), with "no facts to back [it] up." Obviously, I don't think we should make laws based on Luckynumber7's uninformed, naive, ignorant, inexperienced, silly "personal opinion." Unfortunately, as we have seen in this thread and in this nation, there are a lot of uninformed, naive, ignorant, inexperienced, and silly people. They, like Lucky, shouldn't be coddled.
Cabinfever's cute "ice cream" analogy (Message #92) was ably addressed by mnjperry (Message #93), but even he/she missed the main point: the definition of a frozen dessert can't be equated with a major life arrangement between two humans. "Marriage" will continue to mean what it means regardless of the gender of the two partners -- I think this point has been fairly well established during the course of this discussion. And, unlike Baskin-Robbins, none of the proponents of gay marriage is trying to "sell" Cabinfever anything.
108. ErichVanDussen - December 10, 1996:
Cabinfever (104): Elliott, it seems, is more tolerant of your views than I. Are you seriously suggesting that civil-rights legislation should include waivers for those members of the private sector who do not wish to participate? Of course this is a battle for increased income -- but no more of an increase than that to which they're entitled, and no more than EVERYONE else already has whose actions are not prohibited by law, i.e., pedophiles and the like.
When blacks and women were given the vote,would you have favored the inclusion in those pieces of legislation a provision that reserved the right, for politicans who were ousted thanks to the contributions of the new voters, to ignore the election's validity? I'm sure the politicos during those first post-Amendment elections were mighty pissed that they had to court a new, untested portion of society -- just as I'm certain that there were ordinary white males who resented the legislation because the recipients were unworthy.
Sadly, the philosophies you espouse in post 103 seem right in line with those curmudgeons of generations past. "Cabinfever," indeed; perhaps it's time you stepped out into the real world.
109. CompleteIdiot - December 10, 1996:
Buck up, Lucky! Stand your ground! For garsh sake, don't back down on that Roman Empire stuff. The signs are all around us!!
Stand by your principles. Dare to be silly!
"Gay marriage" ... feh!
110. ErichVanDussen - December 10, 1996:
Sorry to confuse; I meant to refer back to post 104 inmy last graph.
111. cabinfever - December 10, 1996:
Message #93(mnjperry)
Your first paragraph makes my point very well - definitions matter when you wish to make distinctions.
The question is not what purpose is served by denying a marriage license to gay people. The question is what purpose is served by redefining the word marriage - in this case it is to increase cash flow.
I am not questioning the right of anybody to live however they please calling themselves or their relationships anything they please. I am merely rejecting their claim to other people's money. The word "marriage" has a precise meaning developed over time. Since the state has decided that the word "marriage" has legal ramifications in the context of how one provides benefits to one's employees in the private sector (and possibly other areas), it does matter what the legal definition is. Your freedom to live your life as you choose should not interfere with my right to not sanction nor support it. This is not a gay/straight issue;it is a issue of individual liberty.
I don't believe I said "marriage is *for* a man and woman - period" but rather "marriage is between a man and woman - period". The former is a proscription, the latter a description.
Regards, Paul Morgan
112. rickcendo - December 10, 1996:
Re: Cabinfever 104: Regarding whether corporations and individuals are free to define spouses as they see fit, they certainly are. In fact, many corporations already recognize the spouses of gay employees with full benefits, regardless what of states and the Federal government say. Individuals are free, of course, to recognize or not recognize whatever they want. If a corporation, for example, decided to award health benefits only to spouses who have been married to their employees for more than two years, that would be perfectly legal. So would awarding health benefits only to spouses who don't work and stay at home, taking care of school-age children. Or, for that matter, they could award benefits to only first spouses, not ones from 2d, 3d, or 4th marriages. That may even lower the divorce rate. A NEW PROPOSAL In fact, how about if the government strengthen marriage by allowing only one marriage per person (heterosexual or homosexual) and by not recognizing subsequent marriages. (Such as the third marriage that Rep. Bob Barr, the sponsor of the "Defense of Marriage" Act, is on) This would create an incentive to remain on one's first marriage, strengthening families and lowering the divorce rate. Come on, all you heterosexuals, surely you can keep up with us "immoral" homosexuals in the longevity of your relationships!!!
113. mnjperry - December 10, 1996:
Re:#111 (cabinfever): I already answered your question regarding the purpose of changing marriage laws to permit gay couples to marry - to provide them with the same legal rights and responsibilities regarding their relationships that straight people currently enjoy. If I understand your argument correctly, you say you're against this because it will impose a financial burden on you and other people. But marriage laws already impose that burden. You are already required to"sanction and support," in this economic sense, marriages that you may not approve of, but which are legally permitted. Allowing gay people to marry would not change this. It would just provide gay people with same opportunities in this area of their lives that heterosexuals already have.
114. LuckyNumber7 - December 10, 1996:
Re:107, I was asked my opinion, Graybeard, you idiot. Read the f'ing posts that lead up to something before you blather on with your half-witted insults.
Message #102, eldicko2, If you have nothing better to add than to call people whom disagree with you on ANYTHING "haters" of this or that, then I wonder why you even bother!
115. AlexKhan - December 10, 1996:
MJNPERRY -
Oh forget it, there is no point in arguing with a libertarian. CABINFEVER uses the classic silly argument, that he doesn't want to contribute his tax dollars in any way to "subsidize" something he doesn't support. You may recall that Bruce Brown said that he didn't want to contribute to financing public education, because he doesn't have any children. What's in it for him, basically? CABINFEVER's argument amounts to the same thing. A silly stickler of an argument.
116. Graybeard - December 10, 1996:
re Message #112, Great post, rickcendo! The hypocrisy of all of those morally superior serial monogamists (Barr, Gingrich, Dole, Reagan, etc., etc.) -- especially the self-appointed "defenders of marriage" -- makes their attacks on us (gay folks) seem pretty twisted. (Much like my syntax....)
117. CompleteIdiot - December 10, 1996:
Luckynumber 7, re Message #114, you GO, boy/girl! Don't take any guff from that "Gaybeard" creature! Talk about a lack of objectivity! And... "eldicko2" is another classic insult in your great tradition of juvenile put-downs...Keep up the great work!!!
118. mnjperry - December 10, 1996:
Re:#112 (rickcendo): Yes, the utter hypocrisy of a heterosexual congressman who is on his third marriage claiming to "defend" that institution by excluding gay people from it is one of the bitter ironies of this whole issue. I think the congressional debate on the "Defense of Marriage Act," and the President's decision to sign it, will be seen with the perspective of time as one of the most unprincipled acts of political pandering that the federalgovernment has taken in a long time. The sight of Senator Byrd, a man whom I admire and respect, waving a Bible on the Senate floor and ranting hysterically about how gay marriage would threaten the very foundations of our civilization was, in my view, a sad and shameful illustration of the extent to which attitudes to gay people are still shaped so strongly by prejudice, especially amoung older people.
119. LuckyNumber7 - December 10, 1996:
This type of childish "humor" is what I have come to expect from liberals and/or Dems. You obviously can't challenge me, so keep making your stupid remarks. You have the wit of Montespan.
120. elpocho2 - December 10, 1996:
Cabinfever's fervid attempts to state that marriage has a "precise meaning" is absolutely incorrect. CF should stop and reflect, the concept of "family" and marriage has changed over time. The simple-minded notion that marriage has never included same sex unions is incorrect. I suggest that CF & Magiknum7 read Boswell's _Same Sex Unions_ and _Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality_ before they continue to embarass themselves in this discussion. The tradition that constitues the "precise" meaning of marriage contains same sex unions. Again, same sex unions were sanctified by the early Church and by native americans. There is no "precise" meaning that does not contain this historical truth. Both Cabinfever and Magiknum7 need to recognize that it is Christian and Jewish clergy that are sanctifying same sex unions. So if the clergy do not have any problems with the "sanctity" of these unions - why do Cabinfever and Magiknum7 have problems? c/s
121. elpocho2 - December 10, 1996:
I realize the difficulty Magiknum7 is having in people describing his position as that of a hater -- perhaps he should spend some time wondering why this thread is called "sexual discrimination." Of course, his position calling for discrimination against gays and lesbians cannot have anything to do with "hatred." He's just like ole Jerry Falwell [aka Foulmouth]- who just "loves" gays and wants 'em ta quit sinnin' - or so goes the line at LBU. 'Minds me of that other caring soul - A. Hitler, who thought up the pink triangle. c/s
122. LuckyNumber7 - December 10, 1996:
Re:120, Elpocho2, I could not care less what a small percent of "clergy" in this nation do. A small minority does not make the actions of the majority wrong. History of marrige is NOT relevent to the here and now.
123. Graybeard - December 10, 1996:
Hey LuckyNumber7, get a hold of yourself. The point of my Message #107 was that the arguments you brought forward against gay marriage in this thread -- i.e., the ones that didn't depend directly on your delicate sensibilities -- have been pretty thoroughly dismissed by the other contributors, leaving you alone with your personal opinion. Unfortunately, that's what this whole issue ultimately turns on: personal distaste for a particular notion. I repeat, this is a poor basis for denying someone his or her rights.
124. ElliottRW - December 10, 1996:
elpocho, Please address AlexKhan's criticisms of the BosMessage #17 well book. Thank you.
125. elpocho2 - December 10, 1996:
Well that is just great Magiknum7 Message #122 "I could not care less what a small percent of "clergy" in this nation do. A small minority does not make the actions of the majority wrong. History of marrige is NOT relevent to the here and now." I guess Magik wanted to say was "I could care less..." Alright, we have historical and ongoing practices that sanctify same sex unions -- so what does Magiknum7 do -- he tosses away the evidence. Gee, that is a great way toargue his case. It reminds me of his position on evolution! No way that anyone could characterize his postions as being rigid, authoritarian, closed-minded, etc. Reminds me of all those fundamentalist ministers I knew growing up "Hellfire and damnation, don't contradict me boy 'cause God talks to ME!" This way of thinking has always struck me as being really creepy. c/s
126. AlexKhan - December 10, 1996:
ELPOCHO - Let's not muddle the issue by bringing in Boswell. See my Message #17 for comments on the Boswell book.
127. elpocho2 - December 10, 1996:
ElliotRW Message #124 First of all, the flip quality of Alexkhan's description of Boswell's scholarship demonstrates much of what is wrong with the 'net. I would not characterize Boswell's scholarship as being sloppy. Boswell was an impeccable scholar. His work includes the scholarly sources and the ceremonies that sanctified the unions. I seriously doubt that Alexkhan's scholarship is on the same level as Boswell's. Perhaps I'm wrong - and will be corrected - but, we will only have his assertion that it is true. But, that is the nature of discussion on the 'net - 'cause no one knows you are a dog.
Boswell, Pagels and others have noted that Christianity has altered our ability to understand classical civilization. Homosexuality was a corepart of classical civilization - for example, read the _Symposium_ the discussion is about comedy, tragedy and love. Interlaced in the discussion is the notion that the highest love is between an older and a younger man! My own view is that Alexkhan's blinders impede him from understanding the classical world.c/s
128. elpocho2 - December 10, 1996:
Regarding Alexkhan's dismissive comments with regard to native americans, I would also suggest that an interested reader look at works like R. Gutierrez' _When Jesus Came, The Corn Mothers Went Away_ to understand the depth of change that Chrisianity brings in our understanding of sexuality. It is more than just the Hopis - all native american tribes allowed same sex unions. These traditions were changed with the introduction of the Christianity. However, works written by scholars like Boswell, Pagels and Gutierrez are written within the academy following certain proscribed notions like scholarship. I realize that interrogating those pieces of intellectual work in a scholarly manner fall outside what usually happens in a 'net-based discussion. I mean - who in this discussion has a PhD or the intellectual background in these matters? Look at the way that certain people in this discussion ignore the evidence of homosexuality being a ubiquitous part of human culture. I suppose that is why I'm an academic - at least the rules require you to do something with contradictory evidence. And last but not least, Alexkhan's comments about Hopis reveal his imperious notion about "western" culture -- but, what else is new about his positions. c/s
129. shadowstorm - December 10, 1996:
As in any aspect of consensual sexuality, I think the government has absolutely no say in the matter. I think everyone, no matter the gender or sexual orientation, should be entitled to the sames rights and privileges, once they reach adulthood at 18 years of age. This doesn't only include marriage, but right to bear arms, drink alcoholic beverages, serve in the military, drive a vehicle, and so on.
If a couple is married, whether or not same-sex or mixed, how will that damage society? Do couples of mixed race damage society, as it was originally believed they would? No, they don't. Mixed-gender marriages are still going to be by far the "norm" in our society; I think people just need one more thing to find to fuss about, one more thing to aim their hatred at.
130. AlexKhan - December 10, 1996:
ELPOCHO2 - Re: Message #127
"[Boswell's] work includes the scholarly sources and the ceremonies that sanctified the unions." Yes, I quoted the word he singles out for analysis from those ceremonies - "adelphopoiesis." Much hangs on his analysis of this word. And I have already disputed Boswell's take. I will not appeal to authority or credentials of any kind: I will only say that I _do_ read Greek. There are also numerous instances of dubious readings of textual passages and even tendentious definitions of words. There is simply no evidence to make so large a claim as "Homosexuality was a core part of classical civilization." This is not to say homosexuality does not make an appearance in the classics - it most certainly does. But your mention of the Symposium is totally ignorant - you have the blinders, sir. The word used in the context you're talking about is not EROS, sexual love, but AGAPE, brotherly and filial love. Moreover, Socrates specifically mentions what he learnt from the priestess Diotima as taking a "non-coporeal form." I think at best you are vulgarizing; at worst the Emperor hasn't a sock to wear. Even if Socrates were talking about eros, this proves absolutely nothing about the mainstream of classical civilization. Your arguments are hollow on all counts. No doubt Christianity has altered the way we view classical civilization. However, I would say that, even more handicapping and blinding than the Christian filter is the modern one: post-Victorian, post-Freudian, promiscuous and sexually suspicious. You yourself are unable to answer the claims I made about the cult of male friendship in pre-modern and non-Western societies.
131. AlexKhan - December 10, 1996:
ELPOCHO2
I do not dispute that homosexuality has existed everywhere and at all times. There is a difference, however, between this fact and the universal social acceptance of homosexuality. Your academic credentials have not prevented you from faulty logic. As for American aboriginals, I really have no idea. That's why I didn't dilate on the topic. "I mean - who in this discussion has a PhD or the intellectual background in these matters?" In the Fray in general, I have counted at least 5 Fraysters with PhD's. "Look at the way that certain people in this discussion ignore the evidence of homosexuality being a ubiquitous part of human culture." As I said, this should not be ignored, but it is irrelevant to the discussion of whether gay marriage should be recognized.
132. AlexKhan - December 10, 1996:
ELPOCHO2
"However, works written by scholars like Boswell, Pagels and Gutierrez are written within the academy following certain proscribed notions like scholarship."
You are clearly either resorting to an ad baculum argument, or exaggerating or idealizing the "rules" within the academy. Historians routinely stake out an expertise and implicitly say, "This is my territory, I know it better than most people. I am an authority. Trust what I say." The criticism of Boswell's book when it came out was countered by defenders (Boswell was dead by then) with this very kind of appeal to authority: that no one knew the medieval Greek or Slavonic Churches as well as Boswell, that his interpretation of the evidence wassuperior precisely because of this intimacy that few others had. "Rules"? Don't make me laugh!
And there is _not_ a consensus on Boswell's book at all within his own sub-field. The consensus exists _only_ in the popular mind. The bookis quite controversial in the academy.
133. LuckyNumber7 - December 10, 1996:
Message #125, elpocho2, Who here is rigid? Do I have convictions? Yes, and I assume you do as well. As to evolution, take another look in the "Duel ID" thread to a rebuttal of the Africa idea. I am "creepy" to you? That is fine. You want to know what I find creepy? Fanatic autocratic gibberish from people who can't tell the difference between not liking an action from not liking the person who commits the action.
Message #123, Gray, you at least got the point of personal opinion correct. No hard feelings?
134. LuckyNumber7 - December 10, 1996:
Message #125, Elpocho2, I said exactly what I wanted to say in Message #122. Thank you. If I could care less, then I would and not bother posting the objection.
135. EmilyJoAnne - December 10, 1996:
LuckyNumber7Message #134, WHEW! elpocho2, Please explain to Lucky what he really said and why, Lucky needs your help. Wonder what LuckyNumber7 is lucky in; it surely isn't Politics or Grammar.
136. LuckyNumber7 - December 10, 1996:
My grammar (not Grammar) is pretty good. I was demonstrating my hatred of the phrase "I could care less...". If you could care less, then why don't you?
The real reason I said anything at all is to get a response out of Elpocho2. S/He withdraws to rethink and regather him/herself when s/he is losing an arguement.
137. Graybeard - December 10, 1996:
LuckyNumber7 (Message #136): See! You ARE a "hater"! You hate "I could care less"! (BTW, that word you keep using is actually spelled "argument.")
138. EmilyJoAnne - December 10, 1996:
elpocho2 is not losing any arguments with you, Lucky. BTW, "Grammar" was used merely for emphasis.
139. LuckyNumber7 - December 10, 1996:
Re:137, You caught me red-handed. OOPS.
I never claimed to be perfect.
140. jimwhiting - December 10, 1996:
mnjperry #74 - I think you're missing the points made in my Message #57. I referred to biologically impossible reproduction, not infertility. A married man and woman can adopt children and have a phenotypically normal family. Individuals and even groups of individuals can have doubts and demurrers about the "normal" family and its values, but the State cannot. In fact, if the State (i.e. the nation) abdicates its responsibility for preference for social norms(or, worse, implies that there are none), then we may see disintegration in the social order. And don't make any spurious defense of diversity here - those people are interested in homogeneity, not diversity. Remember: the State need not validate EVERYTHING that you do.
I don't make a point here for any particular social norm - let 100 flowers bloom - but for the presence of social structure. Russia had a very puritanical structure under communism, strangely. They simply ignored economics. And it's great that Hawaii gets to experiment with marriages. But leave that optional to other states (note small "s"), including whether they recognize Hawaii's. The states (small "s") should be experimental laboratories in a lot of other areas too.
The second point you missed was in regard to volume of legal traffic. The clear implication was that if legal work increased in order to provide the same economic and legal benefits as marriage, then far outbalancing that on the other side would be the legal traffic overcoming the social resistance to providing all the benefits of marriage to gay couples - not just economic, and legal, but social and "fair". Granted that resistance would not be fair, but it would be quite real, and legions of lawyers would find gainful employment for decades. Don't mistake "should be" for "will be".
141. jimwhiting - December 10, 1996:
- cont'd - And in regard to what's obtainable, I can't think of anything economic or legal not obtainable by filling out a legal form, but perhaps a lawyer can identify something.
142. Graybeard - December 10, 1996:
jimwhiting (Message #140), you wrote, "...If the State (i.e. the nation) abdicates its responsibility for preference for social norms (or, worse, implies that there are none), then we may see disintegration in the social order." Let's put aside for now whether your vision that only male-female marriages should be preferred by the State marginalizes more than just same-sex couples (single-parent familes, single-parent plus grandparent familes, no-parent families, etc.). I believe that theState can manifest a preference for married couples -- and thus reinforce the social order -- without dictating the gender makeup of each couple. The bonding of adults in the marriage relationship and its concomitant stabilizing effect on the principals is the chief benefit to the social order -- not necessarily the adults' respective genders. I think too many people fail to see the forest (marriage as a concept) for the trees (sexual orientation).
143. EmilyJoAnne - December 10, 1996:
Graybeard Message #142 I believe you make a good point, "the State can manifest a preference for married couples - and thus reinforce the social order - without dictating the gender makeup of each couple." The thoughts in your post 142 are new to this discussion, if I remember accurately, and should stimulate some further ideas.
144. jimwhiting - December 10, 1996:
Alexkhan Message #66 - "In fact, the only thing that matters in this issue is whether the legal recognition of homosexual marriage will harm society in any way. I just cannot see how this can happen."
Come now, should we really adopt a "Can't hurt, let's try it!" policy for the nation? You know we're not smart enough to avoid unacceptable consequences. And we're not nearly as smart as all those lawyers whose net worth will be tripled by imaginative litigation. What's worse, anything adopted on a national scale is with us forever, no choice. Think of the Tea Board. And the Department of Energy. No, let's let Hawaii go its way, and report back to us in 5 years.
Greybeard 142 -Let's not confuse marriage with "Marriage". We're discussing the latter. My contention is that the State's paperwork offers nothing but false reassurance to the union of two parties. The State may have as much preference as it likes for true marriage as a committed, caring relationship; that's of no effect, as any greybearded heterosexual could tell you. All the State can do is stamp the Standard Version - "Marriage" - and collect the money. And I say you change the Standard Version at your peril - and if you haven't the imagination to see why, I assure you there are thousands who will. Some of them are lawyers. Remember, I'm not denigrating committed relationships of any flavor. I just don't think that feel-good changes are a good idea.
145. LeeIdaho - December 10, 1996:
The most plausible answer is to impose the separation of church and state. This seems impossible to do. Morality has nothing to do with it. When the Government outlawed polygamy it wrote the law to read LEAGALY cohabit with more than one woman. At the time the outrage against Joe Smith was from the church but if the sin was based on morality of sexual intercourse with more than one woman why LEGALLY and why not go further and make it against the law to just cohabit with more than one woman? Make theunion secular and the marrage religious and provide the separation of powers work.
146. AlexKhan - December 10, 1996:
JIMWHITING - Message #144
I don't think you offer any serious argument at all. "Can't hurt, let's try it!"? I see no prima facie reason to expect any bizarre outcomes from legally recognizing gay marriage. The changes are symbolic for all but gay people. "You know we're not smart enough to avoid unacceptable consequences." You offer this as an argument? Please, go invoke the law of unintended consequences elsewhere. This is a knock-kneed posture assumed by people who oppose something and can't or won't state the true reason for that opposition. The rest of your argument about lawyers, the Tea Board, etc. is generic anti-government guff, an overzealous application of the Hayekian faerie of being vigilant against the overweening state. Except perhaps that you see the state as a dumb, fat, pitiful giant who makes a mess of things.
147. elpocho2 - December 10, 1996:
Re: AlexKhan's rebuttal Message #132. Well at least we know that AlexKhan is a dog. He is not an expert in this field. A quick flick of the wrist and he's found something on the Web or some other secondary source. So AlexKhan -- despite your verbal acrobatics and flourishes we see that you are the man behind the curtain. BTW, I went to country day school and read Greek, Latin and several other languages -- big deal! So tout about the Web or in the local pub -- I'm not impressed by your boorish attempts to close off lines of discussion. I'm really suprised that you used such a ridiculous rhetoric device. Re: MagikNum7 Message #133 I still think it is funny that you were number 69 in this discussion. Hmmm, autocratic gibberish - well, you do remind me of those clods from my childhood. I particularly loved the "pastor" from the Primitive Baptist Church. He worked at being ignorant. He never seemed to understand that the Whore of Babylon aka the Catholic Church decided whichGospels would be considered cannonical. He always thought canons had something to do with howitzers. For some odd reason - I always think of you and him at the same time. It must be that ponderous wit of yours.
N.B. I left earlier today because it was time to greet the wife, cook, put the horses in their stalls and to do doggie obedience. Believe me I was not running from your turgid prosody. 8-}# c/s
148. pandemonium - December 10, 1996:
Why not let those involved in the marrige determine the rules " contract " since those who are so hot to live others lives are usually miserable failures at their own. This is the same "religeous right" which seems bent on xenophobia, racial biases, or worse. History has enough examples of those who are "right " causing mayhem in the name of god, it's time to grow up and mind your own business. When you have a proven record of moral and intellectual successes then write a book.
Maybe it is time to TAX churches as the corporate shell (shill) they are, and start having those with the loudest voices put their money where their mouth is. First feed the poor, be better citizens of the world, honestly educate ALL children. then meddle in others affairs if they have the time and energy.
As for gay or any other marrige, any contract between two people which is positive, viable, and is mutually beneficial should be celebrated. There are so few marriges which survive even ten years.
I have yet to get a SOLID answer as to the source of the fear and loathing, there are many more passages in the bible which require the reader to be kind, caring, non-judgemental than those which require a slaughter. Is this a selective hatred or a deeper illness.
As usual the potential of people is wasted on petty squabbles, sad, but the norm.
149. santacruz - December 10, 1996:
AlRosendale (26) - I just want you to know there's another straight person out here who thinks ToadLips and peterdayton123 are the real freaks.
150. AlexKhan - December 10, 1996:
ELPOCHO2 - Re: Message #147
I really admire your talent for caustic remarks. No, really, I do. But I really don't understand the reaction. I mean why not caustic remarks _and_ a proper reply? I have closed off _no_ line of discussion. _None_ whatsoever. In fact, I thought I had opened it quite wide. Which is the "ridiculous rhetoric device"? My mention of Greek was not meant as an appeal to authority. If I hadn't mentioned it, my bringing up the Greek word would have seemed a little presumptuous, don't you think?
If you have a serious argument, please make it. Please attack me headlong on _any_ part of the substance of my posts. Or refer to any part of Boswell's book or any of his sources. I would _always_ rather argue than _not_ argue. Never never do I want to close off lines of discussion.
151. santacruz - December 10, 1996:
GreyBeard (107) - First time I've disagreed with you. I think people like lucky should be coddled (definition 1): "Cooked in water just below the boiling point."
152. elpocho2 - December 10, 1996:
Thank you for the compliment AlexKhan, no better yet, thank all my country day school teachers. I guess I misunderstood your: "Let's not muddle the issue by bringing in Boswell. See my Message #17 for comments on the Boswell book." Presumablyyou really intended your comment to mean "I have closed off _no_ line of discussion. _None_ whatsoever. In fact, I thought I had opened it quite wide." Methinks muddle means to clarify? Gee, your sagacity must be from your deep knowledge of ancient languages. Who gnosis?
Magiknum7 - also I tend to go to other sites - try one of my favorite URLs http://nucleus.om.com.au/phn c/s
153. santacruz - December 10, 1996:
luckynumber7 - Quoting from the introductory sociology text book used at a third-tier school? You are an anchovie among intellectual orcas. After they have shreded your pathetic arguments, you are left with weakly informed personal bias, which is little more than oozings from Limbaugh's pilonidal sinus. You also seem to be the only frayster who is seriously non-plussed by insults. Learn to think. Learn to spell. Learn to write. Learn to argue.
154. santacruz - December 10, 1996:
elpocho2 - I was happy to see your citation of Ramon Gutierrez's work. He is a friend and colleague of my domestic partner.
155. santacruz - December 10, 1996:
Greybeard - I agree with most of what you say and admire your gentle but firm way of making a point. It has a compelling human quality that is missing from the mindless babbling of some folks and the overwrought and hyperlogical manifestos of others. You are a persuasive voice in this thread. I hope you are using your voice in other public forums.
156. ModemRogue - December 10, 1996:
Did I read someone's post to say the consequences of state acceptance of gay marriage would only be symbolic? Boy, how uninformed can you get?
157. elpocho2 - December 10, 1996:
Alexkhan your lecture on eros and agape in the _Symposium_ was absolutely side splitting. Anyone - who isn't a complete twit understands passages like [Jowett's, trans. from 181] For they love not boys, but intelligent beings whose reason is beginning tobe developed, much about the time at which their beards begin to grow. And in choosing young men to be their companions, they mean to be faithful to them, and pass their whole life in company with them, not to take them in their inexperience, and deceive them, and play the fool with them, or run away from one to another of them." Yeah, this passage most certainly is about non-sexual relationships.
Your reference to Diotima was similarly off the mark -- hint, she represents Baubo, in other words this is a reference to the rites of the Thesmophoria and Eleusinian Mysteries. c/s
158. elpocho2 - December 10, 1996:
Santacruz re: your comment about R. Gutierrez. I think his work is magnificent. He is a brilliant scholar who demonstrates what Xicana/o Studies is all about. Besides - I cannot help but admire the work of another Manito....we are the best you know! 8-}# c/s
159. jgaylord - December 10, 1996:
There have been quite a few messages since I last checked into the Fray. I'd like to respond to a few of them:
Message #94 refers to "the view of the church or all religions". Please, please don't make the same mistake as your denigrators. "All" religions share very few, if any points of view. It is, unfortunately ture that the religious right and many mainstream denominations condemn homosexuals and will not accept them. This is NOT true of the United Church of Christ. Some individual churches within this denomination may have this attitude, but most, and the governing body of the denomiation, believe in accepting everyone. As I mentioned in my earlier posting, the minister of my church is gay, as are about one-third ofour members (We are not a "gay" church; we are merely open and accepting).
#103 - Re family units - beautiful! I agree completely!
There have been several (well, at least a couple) arguments stating, or implying, that gay marriages do not benefit society because they do not produce children. In regard to this subject:
(1) Who says producing children benefits society? Many welfare families are very good at producing more children to go on welfare - and many of those children repeat the process. Where is the benefit to society in this? With overcrowding and the population explosion, it seems to me that marriages that don't produce children benfit society much more.
(2) I have seen the argument here, and heard it elsewhere, that the purpose of marriage is to have children. I assume this means that I should not be allowed to marry. I am a 61-year-old widow (after nearly 30 years of marriage - some of us heterosexuals do manage to stay together) who would love to have the option of remarriage if it should come along.
In response to the repeated arguments and implications that the only way homosexual couples would benefit by being married is financially, you are overlooking the fact that patients in
160. jgaylord - December 10, 1996:
Continuation of messge #159:
Patients in the intensive care wards of most hospitals are allowed visits only from family members. This means that a loving companion of 30 (or however many) years could be excluded from the loved one's deathbed. Legal marriage would eliminate this injustice.
Regarding the definition of marriage: Marriage is (or should be) a covenant between two adults who love each other and want to make a legal (and possibly religious) committment to each other.
I fail to see how allowing homosexual marriages would be any more of a threat to the sanctity of marriage than the serial marriages of many entertainment figures (and others), which are perfectly legal.
161. cigarlaw - December 10, 1996:
Re LeeIdaho's suggestion, one need only get divorced in this society to learn that marriage, as practiced in this country is nothing more than a partnership contract. A divorce proceeding is exactly like breaking up a business partnership. One veiws the assets and cuts them down the middle -- at least in community property states.
The bottom line remains, what compelling STATE interest is served by forbidding single sex marriages other than the attainment of certain STATE financial benefits? There are, of course, health insurance, life insurance and other similar benefits that accrue from marriage, but the companies who provide those benefits use the State definition of marriage to make that determination. Otherwise, Catholics who divorce could never name their new spouses as beneficiaries.
As to the ongoing myth of the fall of the Roman Empire: Remember, the Roman Empire that fell was Christian. The several hundred thousand Vandals and Goths who poured across the Rhine -- legally andillegally may have contributed a bit more than any homosexual unions did to the collapse of the Empire (This of course ignores the millions of Moslems that crushed the Eastern Empire).
If we are really concerned with the preservation of the "traditional" family, why not ban divorce and, as I hinted at before, eliminate all the laws granting legal status to bastards? If a child is born out of wedlock, why do we afford him/her any legal inheritance status or any right to support, if we are concerned with the "family" or marriage?
Marriage is a religious and social institution recognized by the state. The state did not create it, it simply taxes it, or licenses it. The question remains, should the state care whether ornot the people marrying are of opposite sex, other than the money angle?
162. RobbieHo - December 11, 1996:
Let me start by saying I am a resident of Hawaii. I have lived here about 12 years. Which gives me a little experience with predjudice. White Anglo Prot. males are a minority here. But also, there is alot of acceptance of people that are different, due to the multi-ethnic, multi-national, and multi-religious backgrounds of our populace. I believe that is why this issue came up here first. Also because the state has been liberal almost since state-hood. Local T.V. stations have interviewed tourists around the state, and about half said that they would not return, or would have serious reservations about returning to the state if same sex marriages were to become legal here. About 75% of the state's income is from tourists. So about 25% would be a conservitive(there's that word again) number that my family's income would drop. I know that my family can't afford that. And neither could my friends. This is unacceptable for a largely symbolic gesture. Everyone knows social security is a joke. And being married is no guarantee that you will recieve your deceased spouse's property.
So, do what the rest of us do, get life insurance for you and your loved one, invest in a retirement plan, and make a will. 95% of this state should not have to suffer financially for a "token" to the 5% minority.
163. IrvingSnodgrass - December 11, 1996:
RobbieHo Message #162: What Hawaii loses in bigoted homophobic tourists, I would assume it would make up for with gay couples visiting to get married or open-minded tourists wanting to support a forward-looking state.
164. CharlieL - December 11, 1996:
Wow, go away for a day, and the messages pile up. The idea of family units is a good one, except it would probably be co-opted by Bob ("all of my three wives share my deep family values") Barr and turned into a "Defense of Family Units" act.
LN7 Message #119: Calling someone "eldicko" and then whining about juvenile humor directed at you? GROW UP! Your credibility, which was already in the single digits (on a scale of 1 to 1,000,000), has now fallen into the negative numbers. You are to be ignored until you make any reasoned arguments that do not depend on "That's how I feel and that's why I am correct."
Any return flames you make in my direction will be regarded as juvenile humor and ignored.
165. cabinfever - December 11, 1996:
re:Message #105 (ElliotRW)
A good summation but just because one fights things going from bad to worse does not mean that they support the bad. Government should have zero role in social institutions; social institutions should arise as the natural outcome of free interactions among people, not somebody in government's idea of what would be beneficial to society. I cannot understand why people are so willing to become assets to be managed by the state for the states purposes.
If the people who run the Fray with to create a new thread, I have no objection other than not wanting this topic to be divorced from the subject of the current thread. This is not merely gay issue but an abstract individual freedom issue surfacing in a particular concrete instance. The underlying principles are the same whether we are talking about gay marriage, afirmative action, political correctness, or the draft.
Regards, Paul Morgan
166. elpocho2 - December 11, 1996:
Re: Magiknum7 Message #133. you wrote: "As to evolution, take another look in the "Duel ID" thread to a rebuttal of the Africa idea." Your constant use of malaprops is part of the real joy in reading this thread! Perhaps it isbecause I frequently imagine you drooling and playing `Dueling Banjos' on your porch. Yeah, the person that posted that missive on evolution will probably be the next Mary Leakey. Again, just because someone in the gin mill asserts something foolish does not mean it is valid. c/s
167. IrvingSnodgrass - December 11, 1996:
165 posts, and I've yet to see a clearer, better-reasoned one than Message #2.
168. cabinfever - December 11, 1996:
re:Message #106 (AlexKhan)
Alex, you kidder you...I'm going to remember this day as the first time I was ever accused of mysticism. For the record, I'm an agnostic with strong libertarian tendancies who considers reason the only reasonableapproach to life and who just wants to be left alone.
For at least the third time, I care nothing whatever for the benefits or disadvantages of gay marriage. Law should not be made by a bean counter's cost/benefit analysis. My point is that the surface reasons are a fraud - the underlying reasons are lust for other people's money. And I have stated multiple times that the government should make no distinctions between inidividual to the point where if necessary, the state should not recognize marriage as a legal contruct. That is the proper arena for civil liberties legislation and debate. The private sector is, of course, private and not at all the same thing. Here is a concrete example regarding the private sector:
Gerald and Pat are a gay couple who live in a state considered by some to be the analog of marriage. Joe owns a factory and employs Pat. Joe has a benefits program that provides for medical insurance for the spouses and children of married employees. The Hawaii ruling becomes the law of the land. Gerald and Pat get married in the new legal definition of the word. Joe, for his own reasons (they may be on moral grounds or otherwise) refuses to extend medical insurance benefits to Gerald. Joe is accused, convicted, fined, and possibly jailed for descrimination, not for *hurting* Gerald but for *not helping* Gerald. This is reasonable?
I reread the original Slate article and it only mentions that benefits extended to gay "spouses" would be treated inthe same manner tax-wise as current benefits. Is anyone going to argue that the above scenario wouldn't happen if the Hawaii ruling stands?
Regards, Paul Morgan
169. cabinfever - December 11, 1996:
re:Message #108(ErichVanDussen)
As seems to be the pattern here, the issue of civil-rights depends upon the definition. I make a distinction between civil-rights in the private vs. public sector. A cop may not refuse to stop and help a broken-down motorist for any reason (any reason relevant to this discussion, that is). Another motorist, however, is free to stop or not stop as they please. We have lost the distinction in this country between "hurting" and "not helping" and are not the better for it.
re:Message #112(rickcendo)
For the first couple of paragraphs, see my above example.
"A NEW PROPOSAL In fact, how about if the government strengthen marriage by allowing only one marriage per person (heterosexual or homosexual) and by not recognizing subsequent marriages" - quote from 112
Here we go again...why do you want to manage other people's lives? I get your sarcasm but you also get my point.
re: <<<>>> (mnjperry)
I never said that legalizing gay marriages would be a financial burden upon myself or others...in fact it would be an increase in the current burden but I'm not quibbling about the amount of other people's money you are trying to spend but the fact that you wish to spend it at all. And again, just because I am against going from bad to worse does not mean I support the bad.
Regards, Paul Morgan
170. cabinfever - December 11, 1996:
re: Message #115 (AlexKhan)
"Oh forget it, there is no point in arguing with a libertarian. " - quote from 115
The funny thing about them there pesky libertarian types is that if you would just leave them alone, they would go away.
re: Message #120 (elpocho2)
Forgive me for failing to mention that I meant the common and legal definition of marriage in the United State over the last two hundred years or so. Oh, and exclude those Mormons as well as the Indians.
"So if the clergy do not have any problems with the "sanctity" of these unions - why do Cabinfever and Magiknum7 have problems? " - quote from 120
Because the clergy aren't requiring me to recognize and sanction their actions.
In summary, the problem here is that people have lost the distinction between good behaviour and legal behaviour and the politicians have caught the ball and are running with it. And the problem with politicians is that when all you can do is make laws, everything looks like a crime.
Regards, Paul Morgan
171. rickcendo - December 11, 1996:
RE: RobbieHo -- As a gay person in a 5-year-old relationship, I do very much sympathize with your concerns. I'd just add two points to the earlier point made about the huge pick up in tourism from gay couples. 1.) TV interviews are not a good predictor. Half the people say they would have concerns about coming back because TV producers try to show half of the opinions on one side and half on the other for "balance." I would bet that a scientific poll would find few people so obsessed over homosexuals that they would plan their vactions around the same-sex marriage issue. 2.) Marriage is no more a "token" for me that it is for you or for other heterosexuals.
Re: Paul (aka Cabinfever). Being a small-l libertarian myself,I agree with you in broad terms. In a perfect world, I'd just as soon the State stay out of our lives as much as possible. But the State is in our lives and, currently, it's recognizing the unions of heterosexual couples and, implicitly and in very real ways, insisting that the unions of homosexual couples simply do not exsist. If the State is going to be in our lives to this extent, I hope that you would agree that if should be in them, as much as possible, in a way that is fair and neutral toward all law-abiding citizens.
172. LuckyNumber7 - December 11, 1996:
Re:166, Elpocho, Why do you discredit yourself when you say "just because someone in the gin mill asserts something foolish does not mean it