Homosexual Marriage

[Starboy]

The time is never right for change. It took a civil war and the civil rights movement, with hoses, dogs, national guards, mass arrests, civil disobedience and all the rest. It was not as if the people were ready for it. In any case this is not rocket science. The constitution is a document based on the values of freedom and equality. Unless you are trying to tell me that these have gone out of style they apply to gays the same as anyone else. So if people do not like it, so what? It is not as if they ever liked it when a status quo was lifted that gave a group their rights that were previously oppressed.

I come back to what I have said before. Christian traditions have made people ignoramuses when it comes to American traditions. All patriots will know tyranny when they see it and will not stand for it. "Give me liberty or give me death!" Tyranny of the Christian traditionalist is still tyranny.

Starboy

[tinybear]

How about tyranny of those who seek to impose their so-called modern liberated social values on others who are more traditional minded? Don't you think the traditionalists have a right to oppose that too? In such a conflict, the only way to resolve is to put it to the vote. If it turns out that the traditionalists are in the majority, then wouldn't you say that we should abide by that vote rather than succumb to the tyranny of the minority?

[Starboy]

Oppose what? Hetero families will still exist. There will still be hetero families. They will still be subject to the laws and rights granted to families.

Homo families will still exist (as they do now) but they will have the same treatment as hetero families.

If you are trying to argue that just the thought that homo families would now have equal rights is just too much for them to bear then all I can say is they need help. They are no different than the bigots that just could not abide with blacks using white bathrooms and riding on the front of the bus. All the while thinking, 'who do those uppity blacks think they are?'

Now of course if the fine upstanding and loving Christians in this country must do god's will and screw everyone else then I suppose there is nothing to stop them. History will not look well on them and Christianity will yet again have a black mark upon it in the book of history. Not that such a thing has ever stopped Christians before.

Starboy

[Waychel]

Starboy, you forget that just as homosexual marriages are denied federal recognition due to having spouses of the same sex, there are HETEROSEXUAL marriages which are denied federal recognition due to being polygamist and involving more than one spouse. Such polygamist households also held the claim of descrimination of religious freedom in the past; an argument far more legitimate in my opinion than what homosexuals are claiming now.

If we were to modify the definition of marriage so that ALL types of marriage were represented and acknowledged federally -- not only between man and man, but man and five wives, woman between child or even man and animal -- then the nature of marriage law and all current heterosexual marriages would invariably change as a result. The issue of joint tax returns or even the claim to a spouse's social security would no longer exist as they would need to be revoked from priveledge; not only as a precaution for forseeable abuse, but for inequality within the institution considering how varied marriage types had become. What is the benefit for all involved in the end? Nothing but a total mockery of the institution of marriage as it is recognized by law, if you ask me.

Either way, the demands of homosexuals would not be met... with the exception that they would get a nice piece of paper. :p

[tinybear]

Starboy> Oppose the institution of marriage being redefined in a way which traditionalists intensely dislike of course. Like Waychel said, why was marriage defined as a monogamous union? Because the majority felt that polygamy wasn't the way to go in our society. You may well say that notion is outdated and should change. That's another issue. But my point is marriage is still a very important domestic institution the definition of which is still a matter of great concern for all members of our community. If the majority feel that the definition should change, so be it. But let's put it to a vote, shall we?

[Osborn F Enready]

Tinybear, as hard as I have looked, I can't see anytime that you have listed what country you are from.

May I ask what country you are from? The reason I ask this is quite simple. You speak of rights and laws so casually, I have trouble believing you are any part of our system in the United States. I am not in any way trying to be insulting, or derogatory, I am sincerely curious. I believe this is in regards to the current topic of discussion, at least in the way I am interpreting your views.

[Starboy]

Waychel, in the case of a pair of homos in a marriage it should have no effect at all on the laws. It would be no different than the family of an infertile couple or a family that did not want children. There need be no change to the law what so ever.

Now as to other religious traditions having more influence over the law than they should, I would say that polygamy should be allowed unless someone can make an argument based on secular reasons for why it should not be allowed. I can think of at least one such argument. But such an argument would also apply to families made of couples.

The law in this land as based on the idea of family is way out of sync with the reality of family life in this country and that is even before considering gay couples. As a society there are several thorny issues we will be forced to deal with. The gay marriage thing is nothing compared with what we are facing. I would argue that making babies should no more be a right then driving a car. We will allow people to have children that we would not allow to own pets. I think that if people choose to engage in self destructive behavior that is their business. Blow their brains out for all I care, but when they bring innocent children into it, that is another matter entirely. I know that I am going into a rats nest of problems but gay marriage is nothing compared to these problems.

Starboy

[Waychel]

I'm growing tired of repeating myself for verbatim.

Homosexuals are not being denied the right to marry.

What homosexuals are being denied is the federal recognition of their marriage.

The federal recognition of homosexual marriage means the revision of marital law.

Therefore, law and the state of marriage in the country are affected.

[tinybear]

Osborn> I'm an American. It surprises me that you see fit to question my nationality based on my views. I hope America and American values still permit a variety of different views on all issues including rights and the Constitution. Incidentally, which of my views do you think I show a disrespect for people's rights?

[Starboy]

Quote by: tinybear Starboy> Oppose the institution of marriage being redefined in a way which traditionalists intensely dislike of course. Like Waychel said, why was marriage defined as a monogamous union? Because the majority felt that polygamy wasn't the way to go in our society. You may well say that notion is outdated and should change. That's another issue. But my point is marriage is still a very important domestic institution the definition of which is still a matter of great concern for all members of our community. If the majority feel that the definition should change, so be it. But let's put it to a vote, shall we?

I never said it wasn't an important domestic institution. I am not arguing that is should be changed at all. All I am saying is that gays already have famiies with the same domestic problems as heteros. They still get sick and end up in hospitals and they still need their spouse to be able to make medical decisions for them. They still get old and retire and then one of them dies and they want their spouse to get their retirement benifits. They still work for corporations and they still get benifits from those corporations that they want their spouse to have just as any spouse in a hetero family. In fact you could say that the gays realize just how important a domestic institutions it is and want their families to have the same rights as the hetros. Giving heteros the same rights doesn't take rights away from anyone else. This is a no brainer. People who oppose this are opressors.

Starboy

[tinybear]

Did I say I opposed? All I said was put it to the vote.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Waychel I'm growing tired of repeating myself for verbatim. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to marry. What homosexuals are being denied is the federal recognition of their marriage. The federal recognition of homosexual marriage means the revision of marital law. Therefore, law and the state of marriage in the country are affected.

And I am getting tired of repeating myself. Allowing heteros to marry will not require one jot of change other than people will now have to ignore the part about marriage being just between a man and a woman. It could still read that it is between two people. It would take a very simple law to make the change. You are just making it into a big deal because that is all the argument you have and it ain't much of an argument.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: tinybear Did I say I opposed? All I said was put it to the vote.

All I said is that rights are not put to a vote. That is what it means to be a right. That may not be how you do things where you come from but that is how it is done in the US. Or at least it is the way it is supposed to be done.

Starboy

[tinybear]

What about where you have conflicting rights? Which prevails?

And what do you mean by "where I come from"? I'm a second generation American and America is where I come from.

[Waychel]

I think I'm going to retire from this debate. =P All I can say is that I find it naive if not entirely ignorant to claim that marriage law would go unchanged if heterosexual marriage were to become federally recognized. We do not know what the extent of the repercussions could be. For one thing, the definition of marriage itself would need to changed in order for heterosexual marriages to be recognized, so such a statement is already false. I must admit that I am also dissapointed that no advocate of the federal recognition of homosexual marriage is willing to address the issue of polygamist and other unions becoming federally recognized on the same grounds of homosexuals as a result.

As I've said, all of these are legitimate concerns, but unforunately the advocates of this "cause" do not take the issue seriously enough to even begin addressing them; only in denying their potential.

[Starboy]

Quote by: tinybear What about where you have conflicting rights? Which prevails? And what do you mean by "where I come from"? I'm a second generation American and America is where I come from.

What conflicting rights? Homo families do not negate hetero families. There is no conflict other than between Christians and their god. But if Christians do not want to marry gays they do not have to, they can marry heteros. And nobody will be forcing Christians to marry gays. That is up to the particular church. But that should not matter because there are already churches that will marry gays. The only thing they can't do is go down to city hall and get a marriage license. And because of that their families do not have the same treatment under the law as hetero families. There is not conflict here, there is only oppression and tyranny. You seem to be trying to argue for tyranny as if that is your god given right. It is not. Your have no right to live in a world where others are not treated the same as you. That would be feudalism. There is no royalty in the US. Christianity does not have a favored status under the law.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Waychel As I've said, all of these are legitimate concerns, but unforunately the advocates of this "cause" do not take the issue seriously enough to even begin addressing them; only in denying their potential.

And I will go around this circle with you once again. We do know what will happen. It will be exactly the same as an infertile couple.

Starboy

[Osborn F Enready]

Tinybear said:
Incidentally, which of my views do you think I show a disrespect for people's rights?

I say:
It is not so much your views, as much as your perception of those rights. You talk casually of removing rights, curbing rights, legislating away rights, ignoring rights, regulating rights, that I think you may not understand the concept of "rights vs privilidge".

As I said, I was not attempting to be mean, or derogatory in any way. Your perception of things just leaves me questioning where these ideas come from.

[Starboy]

I know where they come from. The Christian propagandists. I got the same crap from my godbot sister in law.

Starboy

[Waychel]

Er... I'm Atheist.