lostyankee
enthusiast
Posts: 1263
Reg: 10-27-05
|
08-15-10 11:40 AM - Post#116639
In response to mgrayar
Totally agree. I personally don't support gay marriage. I believe that marriage is a rite reserved for a man and a woman. That's based on my religious beliefs. Once we enter the public sphere, I have to put these views aside, and address the issue based on the constitutional aspects. Even there however there are fine hairs to be split. If it were such a cut and dried issue, then this issue wouldn't have 8 pages of discussion.
|
rtinallentx
enthusiast
Posts: 371
Loc: Allen, TX, USA
Reg: 04-08-03
|
08-15-10 11:56 AM - Post#116641
In response to lostyankee
Really? You can't see how "while you might not be a bigot" could be construed as an attack?
FYI, those who don't endorse a homosexual lifestyle aren't afraid. This isn't fear based. It's based on a set of morals. You may not agree with that opinion, and that's fine. While you feel threatened by others opinions is strange. We're expected to endorse what you believe but are labeled as fearful if we don't.
People who demand tolerance are usually not very tolerant themselves. It truly needs to be a two way street.
Anything can be construed as being an attack, but I'll say it again in this case it was not an attack. What the sentence is saying is that I don't think Joe is a bigot; but that I believe there is something else there.
Your morals are fine and great for you and your family, but your morals stop at my nose, and mine stop at your nose. The whole issue of prop 8 is that one group of people were trying to force their morals onto another group of people. Personal morals, as to how people live their lives, have no place in public law unless there is a direct physical impact on another person or property. Some of my personal morals I realize are also personal prejudices, and I do my best to repress them.
I don't expect you to endorse what I believe, and I fully support your right to believe whatever you want and your right to express said beliefs. There are really only two reasons to oppose same sex marriage. The first of these is fear of change, and the second is a desire to force ones own personal morals onto others. Neither one justify infringing on someone elses civil rights
And yes, tolerance does need to be a two way street; however, that street starts by not trying to or supporting efforts that pass laws or constitutionalize personal morals that deprive others of their civil rights.
|
rtinallentx
enthusiast
Posts: 371
Loc: Allen, TX, USA
Reg: 04-08-03
|
08-15-10 12:04 PM - Post#116642
In response to lostyankee
I agree that the "rite" of marriage something solely in the purview of the various religions, and that they alone get to decide who gets to partake.
|
lostyankee
enthusiast
Posts: 1263
Reg: 10-27-05
|
08-15-10 12:11 PM - Post#116643
In response to rtinallentx
RT, I think we agree more than it may seem. Unfortunately, intent on a forum is often obscured and misconstrued, and I think that's what has certainly happened here.
Either that or the 17 day string of 100+ degree weather is wearing on all of us....
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
08-15-10 02:26 PM - Post#116651
In response to rtinallentx
Haven't had a chance to check in for a few days. So I'll try and answer a few people in one message. I apologize for the size of the posting.
I have a male friend who is legally (in California) married to another man, and they have adopted two young troubled children. They live about as normal of a family life as anyone.
Why should their "family unit" be denied status, yet another male friend's marriage (to a woman), who have no children and in fact, purposely did not want to have children, is A-OK? Which of these "family units" is "growing and prospering"?
What those two men are doing is very admirable, and I am sure that that child is receiving a much better upbringing than would have otherwise have been possible. And in a very important way they are a family. But they still to not fit the criteria to be a married couple since any child that they would care for could not be a children that they themselves have brought into the world. Society created marriage to support couples an encourage new families.
Second time you've brought that up. I can assure you that homophobia plays no part in my stance on this subject. But I suppose it is easier to classify someone whom you disagree as a bigot than it is to discuss the issue on it's own merit.
First off I added the emphasis is Joe's quote below to illustrate my point.
I caught this article in this morning's Dallas Morning News about two people who want to get married. One is a woman, the other was born a man but underwent sex reassignment surgery. So her/his birth certificate says (s)he is a man, but his/her drivers license says (s)he is a woman. The debate is which form of identification to take since Texas still does not do same sex marriage.
Interesting quandary...
Joe, your inability to refer to a transgendered person who has completed sex reassignment surgery and is living life as a woman with the correct pronouns of "she" and "her" (even if your conscious intent was solely just to demonstrte the sexual identy confusion in the issue) combined with your staunch support of denying a minority group their civil rights to me at least shows that while you may not be a bigot, you do at the very least have a subconscious issue of some sort with homosexual and transgendered persons.
And no, I'm not a psychiatrist.
Let's clarify a few points.
1. The "(s)he" and "him/her" were put in on purpose to show the difficulty that some transgendered situations. Remember that the couple was willing to present one partner as male so they could get a marriage license but still wanted that same partner as female in other circumstances. It has nothing to do with an "inability" to refer to the transgendered individual as their chosen sex, but rather the tactic of a transgendered person wanting to be treated as the sex which is the most convenient at the time.
2. I am not trying to deny anyone their civil rights. If you would take the time to read what I wrote with an open mind, you might understand that I believe that a "marriage" makes no sense for a same sex couple. In addition I believe that trying to treat same sex couples exactly the same a male/female couples will, in the long run, be more harmful to gay and lesbian relationships.
These are two different kinds of relationships in their nature and in the way they function in society and they should be treated as such. Trying to shoe-horn a same sex relationship into the same mold as a male/female starting a family type of relationship with an unthinking fervor in the name of "civil rights" is, in the long run, going to be harmful to society as a whole.
|
bsnelson
enthusiast
Posts: 754
Loc: Allen, TX 75013
Reg: 10-14-05
|
08-16-10 12:10 PM - Post#116679
In response to Joe Schirmer
2. I am not trying to deny anyone their civil rights.
It appears that you are - you wish to deny same sex couples the right to marry each other.
If you would take the time to read what I wrote with an open mind, you might understand that I believe that a "marriage" makes no sense for a same sex couple.
I fully support your right to have your beliefs. If gay marriage doesn't make sense for you, please, do not marry a man. It *does* make sense for many, though, so why not let them marry?
In addition I believe that trying to treat same sex couples exactly the same a male/female couples will, in the long run, be more harmful to gay and lesbian relationships.
In what way(s)? This isn't a trick or leading question, I'm genuinely interested to know why you think this.
These are two different kinds of relationships in their nature and in the way they function in society and they should be treated as such. Trying to shoe-horn a same sex relationship into the same mold as a male/female starting a family type of relationship with an unthinking fervor in the name of "civil rights" is, in the long run, going to be harmful to society as a whole.
Again, I'm unsure as to what harm it will cause. Are you concerned with population decline? I can't imagine reproduction rates among gay people will change significantly either direction whether married or not, but adoption rates might increase, which would seem to be a good thing to me (as opposed to kids being shifted around amongst foster families or similar).
What's wrong with letting people you don't even know get married? This is the part that I really don't understand.
Brad
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
08-16-10 01:04 PM - Post#116681
In response to bsnelson
Marriage has had a single purpose for thousands of years: for male/female couples to form a new family unit which encourages the birth and care of children into productive members of society. The relationship of this married couple is fundamentally different than any other kind of relationship, and as a result society can and should treat those relationships at least a little different than any other.
To try and treat a same sex couple exactly the same as a male/female couple who wish to start a family is, I believe, trying to fix a problem with the wrong tool. Civil unions, or domestic partnerships can be used to make shared property ownership, inheritance, visitation right, and the like much easier without changing the meaning and purpose of marriage in society.
What is wrong with allowing the social institution of marriage to continue to exist like it has for thousands of years? Why can't same sex couples use civil unions or domestic partnerships to achieve the rights they are looking for?
|
sco
enthusiast
Posts: 2671
Loc: allen,TX USA
Reg: 10-26-02
|
08-16-10 01:24 PM - Post#116685
In response to Joe Schirmer
Marriage has had a single purpose for thousands of years: for male/female couples to form a new family unit which encourages the birth and care of children into productive members of society. The relationship of this married couple is fundamentally different than any other kind of relationship, and as a result society can and should treat those relationships at least a little different than any other.
To try and treat a same sex couple exactly the same as a male/female couple who wish to start a family is, I believe, trying to fix a problem with the wrong tool. Civil unions, or domestic partnerships can be used to make shared property ownership, inheritance, visitation right, and the like much easier without changing the meaning and purpose of marriage in society.
What is wrong with allowing the social institution of marriage to continue to exist like it has for thousands of years? Why can't same sex couples use civil unions or domestic partnerships to achieve the rights they are looking for?
Personally I understand where you are coming from and I sympathize with your sentiment to an extent. I would not presume to speak for same sex couples but I would imagine that the answer to your question is that they feel that if their relationship is not called a marriage that it is somehow considered inferior. Harking back to our earlier discussion, I think if a heterosexual couple who did not intend to have children were told that they couldn't get married but they could form a domestic partnership or civil union they would feel that their relationship were being treated as inferior as well.
Edited by sco on 08-16-10 01:25 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
bsnelson
enthusiast
Posts: 754
Loc: Allen, TX 75013
Reg: 10-14-05
|
08-16-10 02:46 PM - Post#116690
In response to Joe Schirmer
Marriage has had a single purpose for thousands of years: for male/female couples to form a new family unit which encourages the birth and care of children into productive members of society. The relationship of this married couple is fundamentally different than any other kind of relationship, and as a result society can and should treat those relationships at least a little different than any other.
So, the following shouldn't be able to marry?
Infertile men/women
Post-menopausal women
Couples who want no children (e.g. have children from a previous marriage or simply don't want kids)
Brad
|
sco
enthusiast
Posts: 2671
Loc: allen,TX USA
Reg: 10-26-02
|
08-16-10 03:28 PM - Post#116696
In response to bsnelson
You are asking the same question which I already answered.
The intent to have children is essential in defining marriage. It does not makes any sense to be married if you do not intend upon having children.
I think the effort being put forth to redefine marriage would be much better spend upon strengthening civil unions.
We have come full circle and are back to the question asked a few pages back. Joe indeed does seem to believe that marriage should be reserved only for those intending to produce children.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
08-16-10 05:08 PM - Post#116711
In response to sco
Personally I understand where you are coming from and I sympathize with your sentiment to an extent. I would not presume to speak for same sex couples but I would imagine that the answer to your question is that they feel that if their relationship is not called a marriage that it is somehow considered inferior. Harking back to our earlier discussion, I think if a heterosexual couple who did not intend to have children were told that they couldn't get married but they could form a domestic partnership or civil union they would feel that their relationship were being treated as inferior as well.
I'm glad that it finally appears that while we might not agree with each other (and probably never will), at least we are starting to understand each other's position on the subject.
Neither I or society can say if one relationship is inferior to on another, that would a subjective judgment. But there are different kinds of relationships.
Civil marriage is not only an agreement / contract / covenant between two parties, it is also an agreement / contract / covenant between the society and the couple. Families and the raising of children into productive citizens is of utmost importance to society. Humans have evolved to naturally form family units focused around a male/female couple and their offspring. Marriage is used to civilly recognize that family unit, and the rules of society support and encourage that relationship towards the continuation and betterment of society. A couple which has no intention of bearing and raising children are looking to form a different kind of relationship.
|
bsnelson
enthusiast
Posts: 754
Loc: Allen, TX 75013
Reg: 10-14-05
|
08-16-10 08:06 PM - Post#116716
In response to Joe Schirmer
So, the contributions of a "couple which has no intention of bearing and raising children" are worth less than than those who do? My friend's wife (mentioned above) is a kindergarten teacher. She promotes the betterment of society (with children, even!) every year with each new class of children.
I do finally understand your position, Joe; I'm just shocked by it. Wanting to deny couples of the "full" benefits of marriage because they can't or won't bear natural offspring is, to me, even worse and more offensive than denying that right to gays.
Brad
|
mgrayar
enthusiast
Posts: 3164
Reg: 09-25-09
|
08-16-10 08:24 PM - Post#116717
In response to bsnelson
I think Joe is just saying that like every other license in America, a marriage license has certain requirements. Currently one of those requirements is that there be one man one woman. Joe has said that he feels the current definition of marriage should not be changed (and the majority of US citizens agree). He also has stated that he believes same sex couples deserve the same civil rights. That can be accomplished without changing the definition of marriage. Contrary to popular belief, marriage is not a right. It is a privilege given to you by your spouse, and given to your spouse in return. Marriage requires a license that has requirements. Just like a medical license, drivers license, etc... a marriage license has set parameters. They don't just hand out a medical license (hopefully) because someone claims they have a right to practice medicine. I know this is a simplistic analogy, but I think it somewhat fits.
A good debate would center around the question....Is marriage a right that is owed to everyone, or are there rights that accompany marriage that need to apply to everyone? Those are two very different things!
Learn more about Cystic Fibrosis and how you can help at:
http://www.cff.org
Everyone can make a difference! |
Edited by mgrayar on 08-16-10 08:26 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3755
Reg: 03-29-06
|
08-16-10 09:38 PM - Post#116722
In response to mgrayar
What are the actual lawful marriage license requirements?
Does a specific statute or statutes exist?
| Pup has left the building. |
|
sco
enthusiast
Posts: 2671
Loc: allen,TX USA
Reg: 10-26-02
|
08-16-10 09:40 PM - Post#116723
In response to Joe Schirmer
A couple which has no intention of bearing and raising children are looking to form a different kind of relationship.
That may be true and as I said earlier I give you credit for consistency as you say that you believe that to be true in the case of heterosexual couples as well as same sex. I have never seen it proposed that it be illegal for a heterosexual couple unable or unwilling to bear children to be married. If that were to happen it might actually garner more sympathy for the gay marriage cause as people might have an understanding of how they feel. The sentiment that I sympathize with is the concern for the family unit. Personally I think the family unit is in much more danger from heterosexuals that don't get married or refuse to commit to their responsibilities than from homosexuals that want to form commitments, whatever society chooses to call that commitment.
[Just for clarity, I have a much bigger problem with your assertion that only people willing and able to bear children be allowed to marry than with what society calls a homosexual union.]
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 984
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
08-16-10 09:47 PM - Post#116724
In response to bsnelson
I find this to be an interesting topic and easy to understand both sides to a large extent. However, I’m still trying to fill in the gaps. I appreciate those who can comment without snide remarks.
The libertarian in me asks: Should we be subsidizing any relationships? If so, then why? Why not give benefits to those unfortunate people who haven't been able to find a significant other? They die earlier, don’t they?
I don’t think that Joe is implying that a couple’s worth to society is 100% defined by their intention and/or ability to have or raise children. I think that he sees (and I agree) that an intention and/or ability to raise children in a productive manner is a merit to society. I think that everyone would agree that this is just one way that an individual or couple can contribute to society.
I also think that Joe has a point about the raising of children being important to society (we wouldn’t survive many generations without it). I can understand the argument about being supportive and encouraging of this type of relationship. A legitimate question is to ask whether broadening (loosening, widening, etc…) the definition of marriage might lessen this support.
Last weekend, I thought of the following thought experiment, though it may be a straw man: What if getting married were as simple as filling out a form on a website. You could be married or divorced to anyone within 30 seconds, and be entitled to any advantages that might be available from the government or employer for married couples. If you were in school, you could marry this semester’s roommate, and then divorce him before marrying your next roommate next semester. If you lived alone, you could marry some anonymous person that you found on the internet and you could split the entitlements between the two of you. You wouldn’t have to live together or even to have ever met.
This wouldn’t necessarily affect how much a loving couple loves one another, but I do understand how this change in the civil recognition of marriage could have a finite negative affect on society. If this were to happen, there may be a movement to create a “special marriage” class which had more significance than the standard marriage.
Is the recognition of non-hetro marriages a step in this direction? If so, would it be significant? Should a line be drawn? If so, then where? (I purposely left out any discussion of polygamy, etc…).
Instead of starting with a strict definition of marriage and asking how far we should loosen it, maybe it would be productive to start with the ultra loose definition (above) and ask how much it should be tightened?
As I asked earlier in this tread, what difference does it make whether gay couples can engage in a civil union and refer to it as “marriage?” What’s the driving force for all of this? (This isn't intended to be a snide rhetorical question. and I'm sorry if it comes across that way.)
|
sco
enthusiast
Posts: 2671
Loc: allen,TX USA
Reg: 10-26-02
|
08-16-10 09:53 PM - Post#116725
In response to mgrayar
Marriage requires a license that has requirements. Just like a medical license, drivers license, etc... a marriage license has set parameters
I'm no lawyer but when we applied for a marriage license we were certainly not required to prove that we were capable and/or willing to produce children.
|
mgrayar
enthusiast
Posts: 3164
Reg: 09-25-09
|
08-16-10 10:19 PM - Post#116727
In response to sco
Marriage requires a license that has requirements. Just like a medical license, drivers license, etc... a marriage license has set parameters
I'm no lawyer but when we applied for a marriage license we were certainly not required to prove that we were capable and/or willing to produce children.
I never said you did. But you did have to prove that you were legally able to hold a marriage license in your state. That in fact means that you had to prove (at least for now) you were one man and one woman. Had you applied for the license as three men and two women, you would have been denied. Had you been a duck and a donkey, you would have been denied. Had you been a man and a man, you would have been denied. Yes, a marriage license has requirements that must be met in order for the marriage to be recognized by the state.
PS. If you have joined this conversation late, my stance on this issue as stated before is that same sex unions should have the same legal benefits and negatives that marriage brings currently, I just feel that the battle of words to call it marriage is (in my opinion) a losing battle. If it were about the strength of the union, rather than the word we call it, the battle would have been won many moons ago!
Learn more about Cystic Fibrosis and how you can help at:
http://www.cff.org
Everyone can make a difference! |
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
08-16-10 11:14 PM - Post#116732
In response to bsnelson
So, the contributions of a "couple which has no intention of bearing and raising children" are worth less than than those who do?
You haven't been reading what I've been writing if you still insist upon characterizing my comments as such. The relative worth of one couple over another is a subjective judgement. So one can not objectively say that one is worth more or less.
My friend's wife (mentioned above) is a kindergarten teacher. She promotes the betterment of society (with children, even!) every year with each new class of children.
Very true. Also very important to society are the professions of doctor, fireman, policeman, and many others. They are all different (like marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are different) and you can not say that one profession is "more important" than any of the others, society still depends upon all of them,
I do finally understand your position, Joe; I'm just shocked by it. Wanting to deny couples of the "full" benefits of marriage because they can't or won't bear natural offspring is, to me, even worse and more offensive than denying that right to gays.
Brad
I'm not sure you do understand my position since you still mischaracterize my statements. I am not wanting to deny anyone any basic rights. Instead I am saying that certain benefits such as shared property ownership, inheritance, visitation rights, and the like can be had without watering down the definition of marriage.
Perhaps you can tell me exactly what "right" is being denied if we were to use civil unions or domestic partnerships for those couples who have no intention to have children.
|
sco
enthusiast
Posts: 2671
Loc: allen,TX USA
Reg: 10-26-02
|
08-17-10 07:20 AM - Post#116736
In response to mgrayar
The arguments are all getting mixed up here. Joe has been insisting that a marriage, based on the historical definition, should be reserved for only those couples who intend to have children. That was the point I was addressing. I'm no historical expert but I do not believe it has ever been a legal requirement for a marriage license to prove that a couple intends to have children.
|
|
