Prop 8 Support Defense for those of us who are LDS or like-minded in moral values

[turk179]

Now that it is legal for gays to marry in Connecticut, will it be destroyed? If it is going to be destroyed, is there a time table we can expect this to happen?

......I've always liked Connecticut.

Why is it that when gays live together and have relationships together it has no affect on "the sanctity of marriage" but when laws are passed that protect their rights, all of a sudden "the sanctity of marriage" is in jeopardy?

 

[Draka]

Some don't think the question of morality should even enter into the discussion. Even so, what about the rights of society to set standards?

Standards? Exactly what "standards" are being set here? The standard of denying a minority basic rights everyone else has because some view an "ick" factor associated with the minority? Or because some view themselves as "higher" or "better" than the minority? Is the "standard" being set that whatever the majority does to the minority is OK because they are the majority? The "standard" to treat others as second-class citizens "just because"?

 

[texan1]

Now that it is legal for gays to marry in Connecticut, will it be destroyed? If it is going to be destroyed, is there a time table we can expect this to happen?

......I've always liked Connecticut.

Why is it that when gays live together and have relationships together it has no affect on "the sanctity of marriage" but when laws are passed that protect their rights, all of a sudden "the sanctity of marriage" is in jeopardy?

Well, they better not plan any kind of parade or anything or else God may send another hurricane to destroy them....like he did to New Orleans.

 

[Draka]

Now that it is legal for gays to marry in Connecticut, will it be destroyed? If it is going to be destroyed, is there a time table we can expect this to happen?

......I've always liked Connecticut.

Why is it that when gays live together and have relationships together it has no affect on "the sanctity of marriage" but when laws are passed that protect their rights, all of a sudden "the sanctity of marriage" is in jeopardy?

Better yet, what of the same sex marriages in other countries? Haven't they already been "destroying the sanctity" of marriage all this time? What of the same sex couples in this very country that, while their marriages may not be legal, have been religiously "married" to their partner for years upon years? (yes, that's right, there are religions out there that will marry same sex couples even if it's not legal) You'd think that by now...there wouldn't be any "sanctity" left for marriage at all considering all this.

 

[turk179]

Some don't think the question of morality should even enter into the discussion. Even so, what about the rights of society to set standards?

That doesn't work. Society set standards to enslave black people. That wasn't right. Society set standards to burn witches. That wasn't right either. Other societies set standards to declare one ethnicity better than another. Thats not right as well. Our society has set the standard to deny some consenting adults from gaining the legal benefits from marriage. And thats not right as well. Good thing this seems to be changing now because this form of discrimination does not belong in our society just like any of those other standards did.

 

[turk179]

Better yet, what of the same sex marriages in other countries? Haven't they already been "destroying the sanctity" of marriage all this time? What of the same sex couples in this very country that, while their marriages may not be legal, have been religiously "married" to their partner for years upon years? (yes, that's right, there are religions out there that will marry same sex couples even if it's not legal) You'd think that by now...there wouldn't be any "sanctity" left for marriage at all considering all this.

Maybe G_d just takes a while to do his destroying. Maybe he is just biding his time, waiting for the right moment to drop down his giant finger of death and waggle it at us:tsk:.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Some don't think the question of morality should even enter into the discussion. Even so, what about the rights of society to set standards?

Kiwimac beat me to it...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Standards? Exactly what "standards" are being set here? The standard of denying a minority basic rights everyone else has because some view an "ick" factor associated with the minority? Or because some view themselves as "higher" or "better" than the minority? Is the "standard" being set that whatever the majority does to the minority is OK because they are the majority? The "standard" to treat others as second-class citizens "just because"?

Exactly....

See I don't have a problem with society setting the standard. A proposition was set forward and people either voted yes or voted no. BUT.....The problem is those that voted against gay marriage did it from a dogmatic point of view. They failed to separate church (THEIR church view) from state. This is why I've said if government start putting its nose in church affairs, practices, rituals, customs etc....This same church or churches would start to cry "Separation of church and state"

And again....I have heard not one convincing argument against allowing gay people to marry. All I keep hearing is "it goes against what I believe"...."It goes against God"...."The bible...."...etc...etc...etc.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Lots of question-begging. I've come to expect that from you.

No, because a father marrying his 14-year-old daughter would have significant harm associated with it. This justifies the prohibition.

Try again.

My point holds. Same reasoning.

Expediency

To a large degree, marriage is a matter of governmental expediency. When two people get married, the state recognizes that they intend to join their lives in practically every way possible. To go along with the emotional and spiritual bond of marriage, the state creates a legal bond as well by default, in acknowledgement of the fact that this is what most married couples want.

The intent of a couple to join their lives in this way does not depend on the genders of the people involved. Also (generally, anyhow), society doesn't have an issue with a same-sex couple having many of the legal effects of marriage: I've never heard of any place that forbids a person in a same-sex couple from giving power of attorney to his partner, for example.

Given that the intent to join their lives together is readily apparent and given that society doesn't have a problem extending rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples through other means, it is just as valid for government to acknowledge same-sex couples as they do opposite-sex couples. It also fulfils the same purpose: benefit to the citizenry by expediting a process that would otherwise be difficult and costly.

Begs the question: what are the long term ramifications?

Protection of Families

Some of the rights and benefits of marriage are wrapped up in the concepts of families. These rights are generally not based upon the merits of the married couple but on the merits of the children, and the benefit to that child of an environment that is conducive to being protected and raised properly.

It is legal for same-sex couples to have children. Several means are open to them to do so. Many same-sex couples do have children. Any rights or benefits of marriage that are extended to same-sex couples on the basis of their children (or potential children) can be extended to same-sex couples on the same basis.

Children in same-sex-parented families need just as much support and are just as worthy of benefit as children in opposite-sex-parented families. The rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage that relate to families and children cannot be justifiably denied to same-sex couples on the basis of the merits of the parents, since these rights have nothing to do with the merits of the parents.

Begs the question.

Defense of Liberty

As I mentioned before, it is a general principle of free societies that limitations of freedom must be justified to be valid. Arbitrarily denying any freedom, for instance the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, is an affront to and an assault on this principle that forms part of the foundation of our society.

Begs the question of unintended consequences. Freedom is not license and liberty does not come with self-discipline.

If you're going to invoke some sort of human archetype to defend your position, first you need to establish that such an archetype, or even the idea of archetypes in general, is valid.

Been done. The archetype is biological.

You say "I agree" and then manage to wind your way back to being completely contrary to the point I made that you claimed you agree with.

Evolution occurs on several fronts, not just on the physical or material level. I can't count the number of times I've seen it argued that the concept of God is the product of social evolution that rises out of fear of the unknown. Society is informed by the consequences of its actions and makes adjustments accordingly. Society evolved so as to define marriage as between a male and female.

There is no such thing as "evolutionary purpose". The term makes no more sense than "geologic purpose" or "meterological purpose".

Now you are just being stupid. I put the word "purpose" in quotes and followed it with another descriptive word.

Well, even though the onus wasn't actually on me,

How are you at dodge ball? Pretty good, I'll bet. Apparently the onus is always on the one making the proposal--whether it's God, a new scientific theory or a new drug--unless it comes to matters that make you feel good.

I did show how it is in society's interest to sanction same-sex marriage.

You showed that same-sex marriage is in the interest of feel-good "justice" and egalitarian ideals. Here's a news flash for you: life ain't always fair, but something isn't wrong just because it isn't fair. Remember the golfer who wanted to play in a tournament but couldn't because a medical condition required him to ride in a cart which was against the rules? Fair? No. Wrong? No. The courts imposed a rule change, anyway. Was the court's decision consistent with the idea of a free society?

Freedom is not license. Even free societies are obligated to set standards.

Note: I've been on this subject too long. It's finally beginning to bore me. I am surprised by just how weak of a position the opponents of Prop 8 are in.

 

[texan1]

I know you are bored Rolling Stone, so you may not answer this, but when you say "Wisdom would have us consider all the legal, political and social ramifications not just now and in the immediate future, but a hundred years from now" what do you mean? What do you see as the potential ramifications? I have heard others use arguments like this but have never heard any specific examples. It makes me think people are against it because it simply doesn't feel right to them.

 

[Magic Man]

Lots of question-begging. I've come to expect that from you. My point holds. Same reasoning.

What significant harm do you see with same-sex marriage?

Begs the question: what are the long term ramifications?
Begs the question.
Begs the question of unintended consequences. Freedom is not license and liberty does not come with self-discipline.

Did you just learn that phrase? Maybe now you can go learn what it actually means. When you do, feel free to correct your own post.

Now you are just being stupid. I put the word "purpose" in quotes and followed it with another descriptive word.

Nice personal attack.

Note: I've been on this subject too long. It's finally beginning to bore me. I am surprised by just how weak of a position the opponents of Prop 8 are in.

Well, I have to say I'm glad. Does that mean that we'll finally get an end to your ridiculous arguments, then?

Let me just correct your last sentence before you go:

"I am surprised by my own lack of understanding on the subject, and by my inability to engage in honest intelligent discussion, and so instead I choose to characterize the opposing position as 'weak' with no real basis for that claim other than my own ignorance."

There. That's a little more accurate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know you are bored Rolling Stone, so you may not answer this, but when you say "Wisdom would have us consider all the legal, political and social ramifications not just now and in the immediate future, but a hundred years from now" what do you mean? What do you see as the potential ramifications? I have heard others use arguments like this but have never heard any specific examples. It makes me think people are against it because it simply doesn't feel right to them.

Here's an example of an unforeseen ramification:

Ohio's criminal laws include the crime of spousal abuse, which extends protection to victims who are the spouse of or are "living as the spouse of" their abuser.

In 2005, Ohio passed a constitutional amendment intended to prevent same-sex marriages and civil unions that stated that relationships other than marriage would not be afforded any legal status. One unintended consequence of this was that victims of domestic abuse living unmarried with their abusers suddenly found themselves with much less protection under the law and a number of domestic abuse cases were dismissed as a result.

A bit more about this can be found here.

There. Now that that's out of the way, we can go back to Rolling_Stone pretending that unforeseen consequences are only a matter of concern for one side of this debate.

 

[Draka]

Oh come now people. One should think the long term ramifications of allowing same sex marriage should be obvious. The longer it would be allowed, the more and more angry we make "God" until he is so freakin angry he tosses the Earth into the Sun.

Damn gays getting married is p*ssing off one touchy deity.

 

[turk179]

waggle waggle:tsk:

 

[turk179]

Let me just correct your last sentence before you go:

"I am surprised by my own lack of understanding on the subject, and by my inability to engage in honest intelligent discussion, and so instead I choose to characterize the opposing position as 'weak' with no real basis for that claim other than my own ignorance."

There. That's a little more accurate.

Yeah. thats a little more accurate i do believe

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Here's an example of an unforeseen ramification:

Ohio's criminal laws include the crime of spousal abuse, which extends protection to victims who are the spouse of or are "living as the spouse of" their abuser.

In 2005, Ohio passed a constitutional amendment intended to prevent same-sex marriages and civil unions that stated that relationships other than marriage would not be afforded any legal status. One unintended consequence of this was that victims of domestic abuse living unmarried with their abusers suddenly found themselves with much less protection under the law and a number of domestic abuse cases were dismissed as a result.

A bit more about this can be found here.

There. Now that that's out of the way, we can go back to Rolling_Stone pretending that unforeseen consequences are only a matter of concern for one side of this debate.

So what? You appeal to social justice in a free society in order to justify same-sex marriage, but like the institution of marriage, they, too are human constructs. It creates a paradox, like the Cretan saying, “All Cretans are liars.”

 

[Draka]

Rolling Stone, you keep referencing the "ramifications" of gay marriage. What the heck are they anyway?

You try to get away from religious statements by stating biology. Biology doesn't have anything to do with a legal contract of union between two people. Just what do you think it does? Or is this just a vain attempt at passing your beliefs off as "validated by nature"?

Gay people and gay couples have been around forever. Gay couples have been living as married throughout time. Just what do you think is going to happen to society by legally recognizing what is ALREADY THERE? By allowing gay marriage it isn't going to suddenly make more gay people. All it does..ALL IT DOES...is afford the legal rights they would otherwise be entitled to if they were straight. Their relationships themselves aren't changed. Society isn't changed (as gays are ALREADY LIVING AS MARRIED). What IS changed is that the government will be recognizing the ALREADY EXISTENT couples as legal couples. That's all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what?

So this: you claim that legalizing same-sex marriage may have some hypothetical, nebulous unintended negative consequences. The prospect of these undefined - and quite possibly imaginary - consequences are put forward by you as reason not to allow same-sex marriage, even though so far, you haven't even hinted at what these consequences might possibly be.

On the other hand, the effort to prohibit same-sex marriage has already had a number of real, not hypothetical and specific, not nebulous, unintended, severe negative consequences, yet for some reason, you're apparently happy to ignore this fact.

At best, this is special pleading on your part.

You appeal to social justice in a free society in order to justify same-sex marriage, but like the institution of marriage, they, too are human constructs. It creates a paradox, like the Cretan saying, “All Cretans are liars.”

I appeal to a number of things. And I fail to see the paradox; would you care to expand?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Gay people and gay couples have been around forever. Gay couples have been living as married throughout time.

King James was Gay.

 

[Luminous]

It creates a paradox, like the Cretan saying, “All Cretans are liars.”

:areyoucraIt is not a paradox; the Cretan is lying: not ALL Cretans are liars.