-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/19969/gay-marriage-where-the-right-is-wrong/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
--------------------------------------------------------
I just wanted to accent the above from gaydad's comment.
The arguments against a new group of people joining the legally recongnzed national family are so often based on an unwillingness to share benefits, power, influence, rather than on a defensible rationale for exclusion.
Instead of all this mindless pontificating about "rights" versus "morality", I'd like to see a scientific-rationalist investigation about how society endorsing same-sex sexuality impacts society, as a whole. Modern societies require widespread heterosexual monogamy in order to exist, and if state endorsement of homosexuality, marriage has always been an endorsement of a particular sexuality (monogamous heterosexuality), negatively impacts that monogamy then it has no place being endorsed and advocated by society. Other than a serious negative impact on widespread heterosexual monogamy I cannot see same-sex state endorsement as anything but inevitable.
One final note: marriage is, and has always been, an affirmative state action. It is society saying "we like what you're doing, and we think it's so swell we want to see more of it".
Manchester quite frankly, you people can't figure out what you're willing to allow and what you aren't. It wasn't that long ago that interracial marriages were illegal in many states.... and, if you happened to move into a state that didn't allow said marriage, your LEGAL union was invalid. That is until the SCOTUS declared that states couldn't nullify a legally contracted union from another state. As an example, there are a number of states that allow marriages of what some would call children. If one of those couples moves to a state with a different age requirement, they are STILL married. Compare this with the infamous Marriage Protection Act signed into law by Willie Clinton.
I opine EVERYONE should have a civil union for the legal recognition, protections, responsibilities, etc of the state and federal government. This license would be validated by a member of the government NOT a member of any religious doctrine.
Should one wish to complete a marriage, that would be handled by whatever cult they wished to be recognized by. It would have NO legal recognition, the shaman, priest, witch doctor, preacher, etc. would NOT be licensed by the state. Further more, said 'official' could not act as the legal authority in the civil union. That would ensure there was no confusion about the union vs. the marriage.
Patrick correctly (IMO) separates marriage into "civil unions" and "Marriage" as a religious ceremony and commitment. Patrick pointed out that the CA Supreme Court decision is not meant to interfere (or "force") a religion into performing Gay Marriages. That I wholeheartedly agree with (and said as much in a similar post a a week or two ago on here). Patrick rightly leaves the religious Marriage question for each religion to work out internally.
This country was founded with the idea of a separation of Church and State and the CA Supreme Court honors this distinction.
As far as your argument about brother/sister marriage... there is a very real difference between an incestous relationship and gay marriage. The main difference is the much higher incidence of birth defects as a result of incestuous unions. IMO it is not in the best interest of society to promote relationships which are demonstrably harmful. The harm being the costs of supporting those people with defects. For clarification, I think it is society's responsibility to support those less fortunate, including those with birth defects- call it compassion, social responsibility, etc., but it is very important. I just don't think the state should have policies which encourage unions which actually result in birth defects. Though I think brothers/sisters have more legal benefits (i.e. visitation, inheritance) by being "family" which two unrelated adults do not have.
Speaking of which.... a brother/sister can move in together, have children (without marrying) and pretty much live as man and wife. No one would be the wiser (unless they lived in the same area they were raised in). They could pretty much live as common law man/wife.
And I'm sure I will be commenting on that soon.
Things such as spousal benefits mandated in law complicate the same-sex marriage issue, and do indeed impact the marriages of others, especially when the mandated spousal benefits are drawn from a constrained-resource defined-benefit pool such as Social Security. I don't think it's a quantitatively large impact by any means, but it is certainly a real one.
So, not a major item, but a real one. I consider it a bit of a quibble, as simply getting any significant portion of existing unmarried hetero couples to marry would have the exact same effect. But it's a real effect of allowing gay marriage, one that adversely impacts others. And make no mistake, those things are one of the major drivers of gay marriage, the claiming of those extended spousal rights and benefits under law.
The legal benefits aspect is an interesting point. To me, though, I don't think that should matter. Gay people contribute to social security, too. They pay taxes on their income. Why should they not then be allowed to access the benefits in the same way hetero couples do? If they are contributing to the benefits pool at the same level as their hetero counterparts, there's no logical reason to deny them the benefits.
I strongly support the idea of removing the concept of marriage from government completely. Although I think it would take a lot of work to take marriage records out of the federal government and state governments hands, I think this is really the best way forward in the debate of same sex marriage. Such a direction could also garner support from Mormons or other religious groups who see it as their right and sometimes as their duty to be able to maintain more than one spouse. Where does anybody get the nerve to try to restrict other free peoples right to engage in these personal relationships.
For those who are unaware, the Republican Party has opened up a new web forum for submitting ideas to rebuild the party. I suggested such an idea as described above and it could use as much support as possible to try to get signal to the party that people want this type of sensible solution from government.
Separation of Marriage and State
http://ideas.rebuildtheparty.com/pages/general/...
Again, I come from a conservative family and have tried over many a dinner to get my father to explain how exactly gay people getting married affects his marriage. After 20 years I still have yet to hear anything close to a valid answer. The internet is turning up blanks as well. I wish they would just admit they don't like it and thats the entirety of their arguement.
The Bible issue is a bit more complex than you present it. When understanding an issue in-light of Scripture teaching, the rules of interpretation dictate first that one must weigh passages that are germane to a given issue. Only if the Bible is silent on a particular subject does one appeal to broader biblical principles.
For example, some wonder if gambling is acceptable biblically. Because the Bible says nothing specific about it, an appeal is usually made to broader principles, such as caring for others. Is gambling away my money hurtful to the ones for whom I am responsible to care? etc. You get the drift.
Now take your question of homosexuality, or more specifically, gay marriage. Right away, you jump to "do not judge," a broad biblical principle that seems to fit the case. However, the Bible clearly has injunctions against homosexual behavior -- see Romans 1:18-21, 1 Cor. 6:8-11. Therefore, one must wrestle with those injunctions since they are on-topic. BTW, the argument from silence that Jesus never said homosexual practices were wrong begs the question. Jesus never said bribery was wrong either, but that hardly means it's acceptable in God's sight.
Apart from biblical concerns, practically speaking, if homosexuals were allowed to marry, it's hard to see on what legal grounds a sister would be forbidden from marrying her brother. Every one of the arguments that have been made in favor of gay marriage - many appearing in your post - could be trotted out in defense of brother/sister vows. In that case, it would no longer be politically correct to use the word "incest," in the same way that (apparently) it is no longer allowable to use the expression "sodomy." Yes, this is a "slippery slope" argument, but sometimes that argument is compelling.
A) Societies have never placed same-sex sexuality on the same plane as opposite-sex sexuality. Since this is a widespread historical phenomena, it seems plausible to me that it is the result of underlying biological imperatives that we do not yet understand.
B) Homosexuality is clearly "natural" in that it has a basis in variations of individual biology. I am also quite certain that what is called "homophobia" also has a "natural" basis, although, like most things natural, it can be temporarily suppressed through rigorous and constant socialization. To force roughly half the population to endorse, through their body politic, a practice they perceive as socially dangerous, is to invite a serious rift in an already fragmenting society.
Waltzing along blithely ignoring very real political concerns is just another strain on an already stretched body-politic and the dissolution of any notion of common good. But, frankly, as someone who wants today's America broken up into separate countries, I'm not sure this is a bad thing.