Homosexual Marriage

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Along objective standard marilyn, as the framers, and the concept of individual rights demands.

Objective by whose standards? I don't think it can be considered objective, only subjective.The concept of human rights was probably a whole lot different 200+ yrs ago than it would be today.

From Citizen soldier:

"Gays in the Military! What Would Washington Say?
We don't have to wonder what Washington thought about homosexuals in the service because he communicated his position by his actions and his words in this General Order for March 14, 1778:

At a General Court Martial wereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be disniss'd [from] the service with infamy. His excellency the Commander in Chief [Washington] approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.
George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, ed. (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934), Vol. XI, pp.83-84, from General Orders at Valley Forge on March 14, 1778.

Jefferson on Homosexuality
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia in which he directed that the penalty for sodomy should be castration. See Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed. (Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, pp.226-27, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."

Life was much harsher back then. Times have changed, and this is a good thing, but to say that someone has rights based on such an old document doesn't make sense to me. I don't believe they meant for any of us to be as "free" as we are. That's just MHO, it's not the law or anything.:)

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Objective by whose standards? I don't think it can be considered objective, only subjective.The concept of human rights was probably a whole lot different 200+ yrs ago than it would be today. From Citizen soldier: "Gays in the Military! What Would Washington Say? We don't have to wonder what Washington thought about homosexuals in the service because he communicated his position by his actions and his words in this General Order for March 14, 1778: At a General Court Martial wereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be disniss'd [from] the service with infamy. His excellency the Commander in Chief [Washington] approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, ed. (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934), Vol. XI, pp.83-84, from General Orders at Valley Forge on March 14, 1778. Jefferson on Homosexuality Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia in which he directed that the penalty for sodomy should be castration. See Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed. (Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, pp.226-27, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments." Life was much harsher back then. Times have changed, and this is a good thing, but to say that someone has rights based on such an old document doesn't make sense to me. I don't believe they meant for any of us to be as "free" as we are. That's just MHO, it's not the law or anything.:)

But interestingly enough, Jefferson did not attempt to include that crime, or that penalty, in the Constitution, nor did he put forward that bill during his Presidency (as far as I know). This, then, is one thing that I see as the wisdom of the founding fathers: they were able to keep their own subjective beliefs and preferences out of the Constitution, for the most part, and focus only on the general ideas they could all agree upon: that government should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Not that we should be good Christians, nor that we should follow the Judeo-Christian ethic -- but that no laws should connect any religion to our government.

By recognizing a marriage standard that was established, defined, and defended by a religious ethic, the government is doing just that: they are following a single set of religious beliefs as the standard for a law that affects everyone, including those who are not of that religion. They are doing this with every argument about tradition, about the "definition" of marriage, and every argument about what changing that definition would lead to, because not a single one of these arguments has any objective basis: all of them are based on things we think are moral and immoral, and those ideas, when it comes to marriage, are religious in nature.

The solution? Either we need to re-examine marriage with a fresh, objective, amoral (not immoral) eye, and decide what exactly should be its purpose in our society, or we need to scrap the entire institution as recognized by our government, and leave it simply as a private religious ceremony. Marriage has stood for this long despite being unconstitutional because nobody has challenged it; that doesn't make it right, it just means society would not accept a challenge. Now that we have undergone enough of a paradigm shift to allow it, the challenge has been made, and must be addressed.

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=CoffeeSaint;380476]

By recognizing a marriage standard that was established, defined, and defended by a religious ethic, the government is doing just that: they are following a single set of religious beliefs as the standard for a law that affects everyone, including those who are not of that religion. They are doing this with every argument about tradition, about the "definition" of marriage, and every argument about what changing that definition would lead to, because not a single one of these arguments has any objective basis: all of them are based on things we think are moral and immoral, and those ideas, when it comes to marriage, are religious in nature.

I think that religion is brought into to make it seem non-objective, but our whole system was founded upon these principles. I would rather hear that it just needs to be changed because times have changed rather than the religious deal.

The solution? Either we need to re-examine marriage with a fresh, objective, amoral (not immoral) eye, and decide what exactly should be its purpose in our society, or we need to scrap the entire institution as recognized by our government, and leave it simply as a private religious ceremony. Marriage has stood for this long despite being unconstitutional because nobody has challenged it; that doesn't make it right, it just means society would not accept a challenge. Now that we have undergone enough of a paradigm shift to allow it, the challenge has been made, and must be addressed.

I'd have to say you are right. It needs to be addressed. You said that very nicely by the way.:)

[Heather]

Okay, I haven’t read every post here, way too overwhelming, so I’m just jumping in. Sorry to any one who has already posed ideas I’m about to express and am not giving proper credit to.

Ditto CoffeeSaint, and very well said!

Your suggestion of re-examining the purpose of the institution of marriage made me think about how marriage historically was generally not a declaration made out of love, as we now view it in modern day. It was used for political and social gain. Times have obviously changed, our views on why a couple marries and should marry have vastly changed since times past. So too, I think, should laws concerning who can marry who.

It's called progress.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Heather Okay, I haven’t read every post here, way too overwhelming, so I’m just jumping in. Sorry to any one who has already posed ideas I’m about to express and am not giving proper credit to. Ditto CoffeeSaint, and very well said! Your suggestion of re-examining the purpose of the institution of marriage made me think about how marriage historically was generally not a declaration made out of love, as we now view it in modern day. It was used for political and social gain. Times have obviously changed, our views on why a couple marries and should marry have vastly changed since times past. So too, I think, should laws concerning who can marry who. It's called progress.

I agree marriage wasn't about love. We use the word love pretty loosely today. I think it was a committment type contract. The religious part was ceremonial.

[Dirty Name]

It's called progress.

And I have argued that it's not actually progress at all, that it will in fact harm the institution of marriage in the same manner that allowing people to print counterfeit $50 bills harms the legitimate ones in your wallet.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: fushigi Permitting mixed marriages sent a strong message to Americans that integration should be embraced, and segregation and racial discrimination would no longer be tolerated in the US. Likewise, gay marriage laws send a strong message to Americans that homophobia and bigotry are bankrupt institutions.

That is a byproduct of the law, and shouldn't be the driving reason for it.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name And I have argued that it's not actually progress at all, that it will in fact harm the institution of marriage in the same manner that allowing people to print counterfeit $50 bills harms the legitimate ones in your wallet.

Wow. Talk about inflation. The old slur is "queer as a two dollar bill". Looks like we've jumped to $50 now. Not sure that is progress.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Heather Okay, I haven’t read every post here, way too overwhelming, so I’m just jumping in. Sorry to any one who has already posed ideas I’m about to express and am not giving proper credit to. Ditto CoffeeSaint, and very well said! Your suggestion of re-examining the purpose of the institution of marriage made me think about how marriage historically was generally not a declaration made out of love, as we now view it in modern day. It was used for political and social gain. Times have obviously changed, our views on why a couple marries and should marry have vastly changed since times past. So too, I think, should laws concerning who can marry who. It's called progress.

Then let us bastardize our rights and "progress" right over to marrying dogs and rocks...

[Dirty Name]

Wow. Talk about inflation. The old slur is "queer as a two dollar bill". Looks like we've jumped to $50 now. Not sure that is progress.

Like I said... it isn't.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name Like I said... it isn't.

Yes, but the bigotry hasn't changed.

But the folks fighting for tolerence are making progress. New Jersey has had civil unions since February and civilization as we know it has not yet collapsed. The Supreme Court of Connecticut, the first state to allow civil unions, is currently considering a case to allow gay marriage. Civil society in Connecticut hasn't collapsed either.

Gay Couples Ask Conn. Court for Marriage

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fangrim Then let us bastardize our rights and "progress" right over to marrying dogs and rocks...

How's it feel to beat up that straw man?

While I understand your objection to the argument that gay marriage must be legitimized based on fair and equal treatment, this argument against the attempt to redefine marriage in a reasonable way is nothing but hyperbole and bigotry -- and I think you know it. Nobody is arguing that people should be allowed to marry rocks or animals. When they do, you can argue that it is ridiculous, and you'll have good grounds to do so -- but that doesn't change the validity of this argument. If I ask why shouldn't people be allowed to marry any consenting adult they wish, and your response is that people shouldn't be allowed to marry their dogs, I don't think you have answered my question.

Is there a reason that marriage should be defined only as between one man and one woman?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name And I have argued that it's not actually progress at all, that it will in fact harm the institution of marriage in the same manner that allowing people to print counterfeit $50 bills harms the legitimate ones in your wallet.

That assumes that heterosexual-only marriage, like genuine $50 bills, has value to society. It doesn't. At least, I've never seen any evidence that it does . . .

[RickSp]

Quote by: Fangrim Then let us bastardize our rights and "progress" right over to marrying dogs and rocks...

What is it with the weird right wingers? Is it that they secretly think their dogs are really hot? Perhaps they are too damn close to "man's best friend"? Yuck.

Now this dude suggests marrying his pet rock.

It is just way too strange. At least gay folks only want to marry members of their own species.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: fushigi As Fangrim mentioned earlier, gays are not denied any rights or privileges taken for granted by others--they're perfectly free to marry anyone so long as that person is of the opposite gender. But NOT free to marry whomever they choose, if that person ISN'T of athe opposite gender. CHOICE denied. I don't think any law or constitutional amendment really guarantees gays the right to marry. Marriage laws would need to be changed in order to encompass same-sex marriage, and many oppose changing laws or adding amendments just to give them this right. WHat lwas need to be changed? Where in the constitution does it mention anything about marraige being "different sexes only"? As Dirty Name has often argued (just look at his signature) there are many secular arguments against gay marriage. And this is coming from a guy who SUPPORTS gay marriage.

Denyoing same sex marraige is state sanctioned bigotry, nothing more.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: Fangrim Then let us bastardize our rights and "progress" right over to marrying dogs and rocks...

Sure, and if we want to legalise Marijuana, let's just hand out needles and heroin to 1st graders right?

Jeez, that same old tired argument, taking things WAY past reasonable to support your position.

[fushigi]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint So while the risks are greater, and increase proportional to the closeness of the blood tie, they are not automatic -- even the one-quarter to one-half is deceptive, as "mental and physical deficiencies" could include having really small thumbs.

You just pulled that small thumbs thing right out of your butt, didn't you. I'm pretty sure "deficiency" means a significant disadvantage, like a cleft palette or mental retardation.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Did the rate of rape increase among non-related people after the government legitimized heterosexual marriage? Would the rates of homosexual rape increase were homosexual marriage legitimized? If not, why would the rates of incest increase?

I didn't mention rape--I was talking about sex of any kind. I'd be surprised, for example, if interracial sex didn't increase after mixed marriages were legalized.

[fushigi]

...

[fushigi]

Dirty Name / Fangrim,

Question for you two--not an ironic one, merely seeking an answer to a pesky question. You say the 14th Amendment already provides equal rights under the law for gays to marry--so long as they're marrying someone of the opposite gender. However, why wasn't this argument used to prevent mixed race marriages in the US? After all, blacks could marry anyone they wanted--so long as they were black.

Troublesome question here. According to your logic there, Americans could have been denied the right to interracial marriage.

fushigi

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: fushigi You just pulled that small thumbs thing right out of your butt, didn't you. I'm pretty sure "deficiency" means a significant disadvantage, like a cleft palette or mental retardation.

I most certainly did not pull a small thumb out of my butt!

Yes, you want to think that the article means serious deficiencies, because that validates your argument. But that isn't what it says. If incest did, in fact, cause serious deficiencies in this many cases, why wouldn't they say that? They couldn't spell "serious?" Why not list them? The implication is that some of the deficiencies were not that serious. I'm sure some were, but we have no idea what proportion.

Quote by: fushigi I didn't mention rape--I was talking about sex of any kind. I'd be surprised, for example, if interracial sex didn't increase after mixed marriages were legalized.

I know you didn't mention rape, but I had already discarded consensual incest, as I can't see that increasing because of this. The taboo against interracial marriage was a societal one, and not a very strong or prevalent one across this entire society as a whole. In the pockets of the country where the prejudice was strong, I doubt that the legalization of interracial marriage did increase interracial sex -- I bet the rejection of interracial relationships lasts to this day in such places. The taboo against incest, however, is effectively universal, and it's quite strong in the US. I don't believe that there are family members who lust after each other but don't act on it only because it is illegal.

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe the cases of incest would explode, and everybody would be taking their sister to prom. As long as the relationship is between consenting adults, why should we oppose it? If all you have against it is the possibility of genetic defects in children, then I would recommend we begin screening potential newlyweds for genetic compatibility, and prevent those with bad genes from marrying. Wouldn't you agree?