Honest Discussion Of Same-sex Marriages
<div class="IPBDescription">so i don't hijack another thread</div> This was in answer to a question about what the "Knight Initiative" was.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It was a proposition passed a couple years ago "in defense of marriage" or somesuch. The jist of it was that same-sex marriages performed in other states would not be recognized by the state of California as being valid. Prior to that initiative, the idea was that you could go get married to your same-sex partner in Hawaii, come back to California, and have all the legal benefits associated with marriage.
I thought it was a joke when I first heard about it (living in the very liberal Bay Area and not imagining people would vote for something that seemed so blatantly homophobic), but it passed by something like 80%. So if someone's running for governor and he has the cojones to say he didn't agree with that decision, well, I'll gladly give him my vote.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I would like to make it clear that I am not trying to flame anyone, their beliefs, their dog, or their mother. Please, keep it civil, this is a discussion and not an excuse for dozens of posts of "omg j00 aer t3h suxx0rzzzz!!11one"
I would like to know why people consider that barring homosexuals from marriage is "homophobic." Also, are people not entitled to feelings of homophobia? If a homosexual is entitled to his sexual preference, why should the next person be entitled to his own? The argument that "trying to force your sexual agenda on me is a violation of human rights" or somesuch is pure bunk, because is that not what most homosexual advocacy groups are, in effect, doing?
Please enlighten me. It seems to me that most single-issue political groups are guilty of this kind of hypocrisy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It was a proposition passed a couple years ago "in defense of marriage" or somesuch. The jist of it was that same-sex marriages performed in other states would not be recognized by the state of California as being valid. Prior to that initiative, the idea was that you could go get married to your same-sex partner in Hawaii, come back to California, and have all the legal benefits associated with marriage.
I thought it was a joke when I first heard about it (living in the very liberal Bay Area and not imagining people would vote for something that seemed so blatantly homophobic), but it passed by something like 80%. So if someone's running for governor and he has the cojones to say he didn't agree with that decision, well, I'll gladly give him my vote.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I would like to make it clear that I am not trying to flame anyone, their beliefs, their dog, or their mother. Please, keep it civil, this is a discussion and not an excuse for dozens of posts of "omg j00 aer t3h suxx0rzzzz!!11one"
I would like to know why people consider that barring homosexuals from marriage is "homophobic." Also, are people not entitled to feelings of homophobia? If a homosexual is entitled to his sexual preference, why should the next person be entitled to his own? The argument that "trying to force your sexual agenda on me is a violation of human rights" or somesuch is pure bunk, because is that not what most homosexual advocacy groups are, in effect, doing?
Please enlighten me. It seems to me that most single-issue political groups are guilty of this kind of hypocrisy.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Barring homosexuals from marraige is seen as homophobic because why would anyone not let homosexuals marry unless they were afraid of them and thought they were perhaps "soiling" the concept of marraige.
People are entitled to their feelings, but when their feelings become law, they are more than just feelings, they become forced on the genral populace.
How are homosexual groups forcing their sexual agenda on the rest of us? They are not telling everyone else to be ****. Their are laws in many states against being ****, no one is sayng that their shouldbe similar laws against being strait, all that the homosexual community is asking is that they be allowed to practice their own sexual preference in peace.
I respect how you feel, but at the same time people who disagree with homosexuality are seen as "homophobic" which may or may not be true - it's just a blanket generalization. What are some valid arguments that homosexual advocacy groups have in including homosexuals in marriages? Civil unions? Fine. Marriages? How do you define a marriage? Is it just a mutual sharing of responsibilities? If so, then why are the millions of people living with their partners not considered "married"? *edit* If you have a girlfriend and she moves in with you, or vice versa, does that make you "married"?
Before going into this, I'm going to state that most people can't really be budged on this issue - if you've been raised to believe that homosexuality is blasphemous and evil, nothing I say is really going to sway you. So I'm probably not going to spend a lot of time trying to convince anyone of anything. However, I would be happy to clarify my statement a bit.
People are entitled to feelings of homophobia. People are also entitled to feelings of racism. However, the state (in my opinion) should not be entitled to pass legislation that is motivated by homophobia or racism. That's the difference between the "pro-g@y" and "anti-g@y" groups(for lack of more concise labels). The g@y activists want to be given the same legal rights as everyone else; the people who voted for the Knight initiative want to deny them those rights.
The key thing is this: Not having those rights does negatively impact g@y people in fairly significant ways. G@y people having those rights would not negatively impact straight people, other than perhaps offending their sensibilities a bit.
I find your claim that homosexual advocacy groups are violating human rights to be.... well, I can't say any of the words I'm thinking without this instantly turning into a flame war. But I can see no rational justification for it. Would you care to elaborate?
Finally, keep this bit of context in mind: almost all of the "arguments" being made against g@y marriage were made not that long ago against interracial marriages. I think most of us can now agree that laws prohibiting interracial marriages are completely bogus, no matter how many uber-conservative white folks might be uncomfortable with seeing a black man and a white woman holding hands. I put before you that laws prohibiting same-sex marriages are similarly bogus, no matter how many uber-conservative straight folks might be uncomfortable seeing two men holding hands.
Let's not turn this into an argumen tover symantics, a marriage is when two people become legally married.
Before going into this, I'm going to state that most people can't really be budged on this issue - if you've been raised to believe that homosexuality is blasphemous and evil, nothing I say is really going to sway you. So I'm probably not going to spend a lot of time trying to convince anyone of anything. However, I would be happy to clarify my statement a bit.
People are entitled to feelings of homophobia. People are also entitled to feelings of racism. However, the state (in my opinion) should not be entitled to pass legislation that is motivated by homophobia or racism. That's the difference between the "pro-g@y" and "anti-g@y" groups(for lack of more concise labels). The g@y activists want to be given the same legal rights as everyone else; the people who voted for the Knight initiative want to deny them those rights.
The key thing is this: Not having those rights does negatively impact g@y people in fairly significant ways. G@y people having those rights would not negatively impact straight people, other than perhaps offending their sensibilities a bit.
I find your claim that homosexual advocacy groups are violating human rights to be.... well, I can't say any of the words I'm thinking without this instantly turning into a flame war. But I can see no rational justification for it. Would you care to elaborate?
Finally, keep this bit of context in mind: almost all of the "arguments" being made against g@y marriage were made not that long ago against interracial marriages. I think most of us can now agree that laws prohibiting interracial marriages are completely bogus, no matter how many uber-conservative white folks might be uncomfortable with seeing a black man and a white woman holding hands. I put before you that laws prohibiting same-sex marriages are similarly bogus, no matter how many uber-conservative straight folks might be uncomfortable seeing two men holding hands.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately, you seem to be talking about a completely different issue than I am. Why is legislation that bars "g@ys" from marriage automatically homophobic? And nowhere did I accuse homosexual advocacy groups of human rights violations, I merely pointed out a hypocrisy. While hypocrisy may be an intellectual crime that I despise (and yet am guilty of now and then), that doesn't equate it with "human rights violations"
Uber-conservative straight folks aren't uncomfortable seeing two men holding hands. Well, some are, but why are they so adamant about the issue of marriage? Perhaps it's time to open up your mind and stop calling conservatives homophobic, anti-g@y, etc etc. Perhaps they have good reason? Marriage is a tradition, most importantly, and deeply rooted in the various religions (in the west, Judeo-christian theology). When Judeo-christian theology leaves no room for homosexuality, why are homosexuals trying to force their way into a time-honored tradition? My only explanation is that they want attention, and want to feel accepted. Feel free to disprove me. Also, homosexuals aren't even barred from marriage - they can marry someone of the opposite sex anyway, but unfortunately their choice of lifestyle makes them decline that option.
Now, I must say that political equality of homosexuals (in relation to marriage tax laws etc) should be equalized, but I am still baffled by this whole episode.
Wheee, marriage is, in the eyes of the state, a legal contract. To most of us, it is much more than that, but the legal aspects of it are all that the state is really allowed to concern itself with. The argument for letting g@y people marry is that marriage provides certain legal benefits which can't be obtained any other way - for example, hospital visitation rights and tax deductions for the couple.
Let's not turn this into an argumen tover symantics, a marriage is when two people become legally married. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that's exactly what it is - a semantic debate.
Sorry for the double post.
many states have common law marriages, which means that if 2 people live together and decide they want to be married, and they operate like a married couple, then in the eyes of the law, they're married. if you move in with your girlfriend but do NOT want to be married, then you're not. marriage is an archaic social construct anyway. people say "I do" to vows that are supposed to last "til death do us part," fully intending to divorce and remarry in the future. people marry when they hate each other, simply because they're pregnant and don't want to have a "b4stard" child, or they want to do what's "best" for the kids. Now, with so few people out there who actually have an ounce of respect for the institution of marriage, I can't believe we would deny same sex partners the chance to legalize their love. Hell, not allowed to marry? why stop there? why don't we segregate them, or deport them, or put homosexuals in camps? are g4ys citizens with full human rights or are they not?
Uh. Youre trying to dispute a legal definition of marriage. Thats poor debating, especially considering what the subject is about is same sex relations and laws against it. Try using common sense. No a person living with another is not married, unless a preacher / minister / rabi / whatever does it.
Do you think that marraige is the sole domain of the western religions? Nearly all societies regardless of geograhy or religion practice some form of marraige, so why shouldn't **** people be able to?
Why is legislation that bars interracial marriages automatically racist? Because it's discriminating against a certain group, and from all appearances, it's because that group makes certain people uncomfortable and even scared.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And nowhere did I accuse homosexual advocacy groups of human rights violations, I merely pointed out a hypocrisy. While hypocrisy may be an intellectual crime that I despise (and yet am guilty of now and then), that doesn't equate it with "human rights violations"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What hypocrisy were you talking about, then? It sounded to me very much like you were saying that it was hypocritical of homosexual advocacy groups to talk about human rights violations, which very strongly implies that they themselves are guilty of similar violations. If that's not what you were talking about, please explain.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> When Judeo-christian theology leaves no room for homosexuality, why are homosexuals trying to force their way into a time-honored tradition? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a theocracy, that would be a valid argument. Unfortunately, separation of church and state is pretty well established in the United States. Judeo-Christian doctrine on homosexuality has no place in marriage legislation. If a particular religion wants to refuse to recognize religious wedding ceremonies between two people of the same sex, that's fine, but that decision should not impact whether the state will recognize what is at its core (from the state's point of view) a legal contract between two people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, I must say that political equality of homosexuals (in relation to marriage tax laws etc) should be equalized, but I am still baffled by this whole episode.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A large part of the problem would indeed be solved if "domestic partners" were accorded the same complete rights as legally married couples. However, they are not. And the part of the problem that still remains unsolved is the implication that homosexual couples are inherently perverse, to the extent that allowing them to marry would sully the institution of marriage itself (which, if you do a search on "homosexual marriage" on Google, is EXACTLY the point that you see a lot of these - forgive me - <i>raging homophobes</i> espousing).
Also keep in mind that homosexuality and pedophilia was practiced by the greeks, LONG before christianity.
Actually, it's not.
[edit]
I realized that me calling these uncited sources "raging homophobes" might seem a little wild, so I'm going to provide a direct quote to show you what sort of thing makes my blood boil.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Daniels is backing a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
"This is not just about New Jersey or Massachusetts or Alaska or Hawaii," Daniels said. "They are trying to get footholds at the state level from which to launch a national attack on marriage."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0021297.cfm' target='_blank'>http://family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0021297.cfm</a>
"National attack on marriage"? What sort of Neanderthal reasoning is going on to make this lunatic say something like that? It conjures images of evil homosexual cabals plotting the overthrow of all that is good and pure in the world. "The campaign to spread AIDS across the world was an unbridled success, my homosexual brethren! Now, we shall gain footholds to launch an attack on marriage! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And then we'll have a big orgy." Back to reality - g@ys don't want to "attack" marriage. They want to get married. It's really quite different.
And I've mentioned this before, but I'll say it again. Before you say anything about "well, their lifestyle excludes them from marriage, we shouldn't have to make special accomodations" or "marriage isn't meant to be between two people of the same sex" or yada yada, take the same statement, and try to apply it to interracial couples. You'll find it works pretty well.
"That colored fellah and that white girl want to get married? Shewt, that's their hard luck. Let them live in sin if they want to, but the state of Mississippi isn't going to stand by and let them enter into holy matrimony! And this lynch mob here agrees with me. Doncha, fellas?"
(Apologies to Mississippians, but your state is known for having a very rocky history when it comes to race relations. None of us have an unblemished record; I'm not singling you out.)
Do you think that marraige is the sole domain of the western religions? Nearly all societies regardless of geograhy or religion practice some form of marraige, so why shouldn't **** people be able to? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*edit* I was being too general here *edit*
eastern religions often accept polygamy.
judeo-christianity only accepts monogamy.
We're in a monogamous society.
Also keep in mind that homosexuality and pedophilia was practiced by the greeks, LONG before christianity. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but not before Judaism. And homosexuality has been practiced basically in all ages at all times. That's not the point of the discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Samwise]Actually, it's not.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
reason being?
But yet they are not equal, so that's why they want to get married, so thay can have the same rights.
Your question is answered.
What prevents them from campaigning to have the legal advantages of marriage annulled then?
*edit*<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And I've mentioned this before, but I'll say it again. Before you say anything about "well, their lifestyle excludes them from marriage, we shouldn't have to make special accomodations" or "marriage isn't meant to be between two people of the same sex" or yada yada, take the same statement, and try to apply it to interracial couples. You'll find it works pretty well.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that is a red herring argument, and a bad analogy as well. There are no negative connotations to interracial marriages in terms of religion.
Good. That pretty much amounts to allowing anyone to "get married" in the legal sense. If you agree that this is fine, then we disagree on nothing.
What prevents them from campaigning to have the legal advantages of marriage annulled then? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, they COULD, but that would negatively impact people who are already married.
Conversely, campaigning to give THEMSELVES equal treatment does not negatively impact anyone else.
See the difference? This is the second time I've explained it.
*edit*
Also, in the article you most kindly provided, the author makes the point that the homosexual advocacy group isn't *just* going for civil rights, it's going for access to "the institution of marriage". To me, that tells me one thing: they are not really concerned about civil egalitarianism as societal acceptance. However, like my initial statement, they are being completely hypocritical in the way they go about it. This argument has come full circle.
Why are you even bothering adding same sex marriage to the discussion then. "Is marriage a right" That statement right there not only questions same sex, but interracial, "traditional", etc, etc.
*Edit*
And I don't even think anyone was trying to argue whether it was a right or not. The discussion is about same sex marriages, equal rights in legal standing(not the right itself), and the social aspect of it.
if you were black and I said you shouldn't be allowed to get married because of it, that wouldn't be racist?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps it's time to open up your mind and stop calling conservatives homophobic, anti-g@y, etc etc. Perhaps they have good reason? Marriage is a tradition, most importantly, and deeply rooted in the various religions (in the west, Judeo-christian theology). When Judeo-christian theology leaves no room for homosexuality, why are homosexuals trying to force their way into a time-honored tradition?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so this is a religious crusade? marriage is not only judeo-christian. it has equivalents in all religions, and a marriage can be secular as well. neither judaism nor christianity is the state religion of the US. in fact, in the US, church and state are supposed to be separate. the state is intended to be secular, and unbiased toward any religion, but the state should bar g4ys from any form of marriage because they're "trampling" a judeo-christian tenet? if a particular priest doesn't think g4ys should be married under his denomination, he would fully have the right to not perform the ceremony. the state, however, has no place blanket-denying this right to all homosexuals. the government saying g4ys shouldn't be married is no different from the government saying blacks shouldn't ride at the front of the bus or jews should be put to work in concentration camps.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My only explanation is that they want attention, and want to feel accepted.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...too true. I see your point -- g4ys should not feel accepted. maybe we should make them all wear scarlet "G"s on their shirts, so none of us get confused about who to throw stones at...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, homosexuals aren't even barred from marriage - they can marry someone of the opposite sex anyway, but unfortunately their choice of lifestyle makes them decline that option.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never realized it was a choice to be g4y... wow, if I had, maybe I would have chosen a life of denying the legitimacy of my own sexuality and living in the closet... or maybe I would have chosen to be openly g4y and being hated and disapproved of by probably near half the population... too bad I'm stuck being str8. now I'll never know the joy of having to marry some woman I don't love just so my family will accept me, thereby making both my unloved spose's and my own self-loathing spiral out of control...
yep, some things are just meant to remain taboo.
edited 'cuz maybe I went a little overboard in the last paragraph =P I'm impressed this hasn't become a flame war yet, I don't want to be the person who makes it one... but I'm hoping I can get away with a LITTLE sarcasm...
I really have no idea if there is a truth to this.
Anyways, back to what everyone else was talking about, since I didn't bother to read all the long posts.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 12, 1967, in the case of Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, unequivocally declared that any State statute which invalidates a marriage solely on the grounds of a racial classification is unconstitutional and void. Specifically, the Supreme Court declared:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.
[Antimiscegenation status] also deprive [the parties to such marriage] of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. the freedom to marry has always been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man" fundamental to our very existence and survival * * *. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classification embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all of the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That particular case was about race, not homosexual orientation, so the Equal Protection Clause does not apply. However, the Due Process Clause DOES apply here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to the Supreme Court in the decision quoted above, "privileges of citizens of the United States" includes marriage, and Amendment 14 therefore makes it not only a privilege but a <i>right</i>.
(pwned)