Bush and the banning of "gay" marriages.

[EviLTwiN]

or in your case, each to his own unless he's gay

I can't judge you, I can only go on what you express in your posts, so you'll have to forgive me if my opinion is that your opinion is prejudiced and immoral, and that you haven't given a justifiable reason why they shuoldnt get married

[the boy jones]

I can't believe this thread, or this law. It sounds like people are still stuck in the 15th century or something. I am genuinely concerned that todays society is going backwards instead of forwards.
Gay marriages should be embraced, what right does a straight person have to tell a gay person what to do.
Why are people so afraid of things they don't understand or that are different?
Just to clarify, I am actually straight.

[Plette]

Okay, so a lot of people are personally opposed to the ideas of gay people being allowed to marry, right? Let's look at why. It seems to be either because of religious reasons, or some moral opposition to gay marriage outside of religion. Am I missing any reasons for objections? I think those are the two basic sources of them.

Right, next: in the United States and Britain, etc. there is *supposed* to be a separation of church and state, which means that no religious reasons should be a basis for any law or policy decision. So clearly, objections stemming from religious opposition to gay marriage should be irrelevant as far as the state making its laws is concerned, right?

That just leaves the non-religious moral objections. If the role of the state is to enforce this morality, and if the majority of people are morally opposed to gay marriage, there might be some kind of grounds here. But I contend that the state has no business regulating the morality of its citizens, and hasn't for several hundred years. "Protecting the sanctity of marriage" is a religious idea, and relgion has no place in government. If the state should protect the sanctity of marriage, then should not adultery be a crime punishible by the state? I'm sure 99% of people would find that a gross invasion of privacy and intrusion on personal morality. As it is, the only effect adultery has on marriage as far as law is concerned is that it counts as something of a breach of contract, and is grounds for one party to sue for divorce and most likely gain a favourable settlement in the division of assests because of the infidelity. Which, I think, demonstrates that marriage is legally treated by the state as a private contractual matter between two persons, which gains certain benefits and priveleges (hospital visits, inheritance, tax benefits, etc) from the state.

Anyway, my point is this: I do understand that people's viewpoints differ, and many people may be opposed to gay marriage for whatever reason. Fine, that's their right. But there is a difference between personal feelings and what's right as far as lawmaking goes. I don't think public opinion should affect the decision of the government when it comes to deciding whether gay people are to be allowed to marry just like everyone else; what's right is not always popular. Because the state should not make laws on moral or religious grounds, it should not oppose gay marriage as there are no other reasons for opposing it that I can see.

For the record, I'm from Canada. Gay marriages have been allowed here for several months now, and many gay couples have been married here, including many American couples. There were many of the same objections from the public here as are now being heard in the US. Yet our Prime Minister stood by the separation of church and state: "I'm a Catholic, and I'm praying. But I'm the prime minister of Canada. When I'm the prime minister of Canada, I'm acting as the person responsible for the nation. The problem of my religion, I deal with in other circumstances."

Edited for typos and clarity

[Donald Renouf]

[s]Plette wrote on 00:55, 27th Feb 2004:
Right, next: in the United States and Britain, etc. there is *supposed* to be a separation of church and state...

Actually, in Britain there isn't. The established churches are those of England and Scotland.

Why can't everyone be as reasonable as you, Plette? You always make sane, balanced points which are a pleasure to read, even when one holds an opposing view.

[John Doe]

Once again, clarification, clarification.

I'll start with Exnhilo.
"As for rights given by God? That's an interesting theory and one which could only be espoused by a country where people think the world was created in recent times and Jesus spoke English. Most of your rights were given to you by the British, not God. It was to take a long time before you became more liberal about that than we. We just didn't crow so much about our freedoms - possibly because we're not trying to hide the deeper seated repression of our Society?

And, oddly, I'm not Godless, though you probably think I am - I'm Jewish. And marriage, you utter ignoramus, predates the existence of Christianity by thousands of years. A scale of time I'm sure you have real difficulty imagining."

...That's nice, Exnhilo, but I don't think you're godless... I just think you make some very poor comebacks and don't structure your arguments well. In fact, last I checked, we won our rights from the British because we got the French to help us beat the living daylights out of them at Yorktown. We get our rights from our constitution, not the British. And as for British freedom, I know of no other country where agents of the government can get a warrant to search your house on suspicion of possessing a television.

Keep reading, if you dare venture into that place that your mind dare not look--- CONSERVATIVE LOGIC. And whip out some Aquinas while you're at it, you might learn a thing or two about philosophy.

David Bean, the debates convenor (why, we ask) speaks.
"I'm intrigued by John Doe's assertion that rights 'are given' to people by God, not by states. Presumably that'll be why it DIDN'T take thousands of years for ideas of democracy and human rights to flourish, why NO earlier societies practiced barbarism, and why ALL STATES IN THE WORLD are now entirely civilised in their treatment of individuals (including, for instance, protecting the rights of minorities).

This is also directed at "The Cellar Bar." Perhaps if you peeped up at the real world once in awhile you'd be able to understand context, it's a wonderful thing.

1) The idea of including God in a government framework is not unfamiliar. While your nifty soundbites from Madison and Jefferson are nice, you forget that in that nice declaration of independence they had fun with, they said that human beings have "certain in-alienable rights endowed upon them by their creator", thus acknowledging God. Don't even try to use that as an argument for gay marriage, because (once again) I do not see insurance benefits and shared custody as a fundamental human right on the level of eating, sleeping, shelter, etc.

How does this play into the debate? Well, David Bean, you have to understand that the acknowledgement of "God" in the American constitution (Christian God, Jewish God, Wiccan God, whatever God) means practically is that they acknowledge that the State does NOT giver certain rights to people, but something a level above human beings gives us humanity--- something superior to a thing which is made of men, a state. Is it a moral framework? Who knows. But that's the idea, and that is why any assertion of complete and total separation of chuch and state is utterly ridiculous. Dietrich Bonhoeffer talked about what happens when humans become aware of the ability to commit good and evil and, consequently, the ability to dole out and take away rights. If we leave everything up to the State, as is seen in Orwell or Huxley, we get screwed. God is important because, as a purely abstract concept, he adds an immutable right. That is, if you aren't a godless liberal who wants to enslave everyone to your welfare-state agenda.

There is a difference between "priest-ridden government" and acknowledging a greater ideal than humankind. I am surprised that the "great thinkers" on the Sinner's boards could be so anthropocentric.

David Bean again:
When will people learn that the UK, the USA, France and the like are NOT representative democracies: we are representative LIBERAL democracies. Note the subtle placement of the word 'LIBERAL' there if you're having trouble telling the difference; it signifies that we do respect minority rights and pursuits, irrespective of what the majority thinks about them."

...the United States of America began as a Confederation and is presently a Constitutional Represenative Republic, not a Democracy. Therefore, by extension, I think you may be a little off when you say that it is a "Liberal Democracy" as well. There lies within our law no provision for protecting the interests of minorities. Do you propose I protect the minority interest of paedophiles or suicidal teenagers? Or polygamists?

Amanuet:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

I reply, "man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains"-Rousseau. The Constitution elaborates on the Declaration's point of "we hold these truths..." by adding in its preamble,
"...to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." This doesn't mean to let the leash go--- government still maintains certain powers, the careful balance between what "God" (note quotation marks) has domain over and what we have domain over as men.

Now. A bit of nitty-grit: Gay marriage: Is that Justice? Perhaps, though I disagree. Is it the General Welfare? Depending what viewpoint you look at it, yes and no (I tend to err on the side of no. And don't call me a bigot for saying so because, quite frankly, most of you 1) Aren't American so don't get a say on this issue and 2) Can't present to me a valid legal or philosophical argument that goes beyond inflammatory "civil rights" rhetoric that is legally and logically unsound, given the standard definition of "marriage" which is that which exists between a man and a woman. If anyone can provide reasons why a definition should be allowed to be changed, then please, humour me.)

Continuing:
"Having read a trasncript of Mr Bush's speech, he seems to think that one of the main arguments against Gay Marriage is the fact that it hasn't happened before,-yet how many things are used my mr bush on a daily basis that havent been around for twenty, ten or even a hundred years?"

So, just because something hasn't happened before, means we should legalize it? Ecstasy hadn't happened before, and in the 1980s it was banned across America. I haven't gotten married to a goldfish before (an extreme removal from the MAN/WOMAN definition of marriage), and there are all kinds of reasons why the government bans it. That argument is wholly invalid.

As for your criticism of the Preisdent, I challenge you to mention one thing he has said or done that is an anachronism. And don't say gay marriage legislation, because 38 states have them on the books and plan to for the foreseeable future. HARDLY an anachronism by any reasonable standard.

Continuing:
"and children of "straight" couples are more likely to be hetero-sexual?"

...Given that children of gay couples are more likely to be homosexual, following that path of reasoning then it can be said that children of straight couples are less likely to be homosexual than children of homosexual couples, yes.

To Piette:
""Protecting the sanctity of marriage" is a religious idea, and relgion has no place in government. If the state should protect the sanctity of marriage, then should not adultery be a crime punishible by the state?"

To this I reply, in certain countries the state DOES take a role in the punishment of adultery... see Shari'a law. In the West, the state STILL takes a role--- although not quite in a "let's go and chuck stones at the wife" fashion.

In fact, we have a more painful way of dealing with adultery than public execution: it's called Family Court in America, a division of the civil court system. Judges there decide "punishment" for adultery by placing blame on the break-up of marriages and institution financial "penalties" (Alimony, custody removal, whatever.) In effect, it is the judiciary making adultery a punishable crime , in a manner of speaking.

Anyways. Enough of that... another 20 minutes of my time and I can create endless hours of evil conservative entertainment!

[John Doe]

Several major typos that I don't want nit-picked:
*Representative, not "represenative"
*President, not preisdent
*Punishable, not punishible... that one is particularly atrocious

The inability to edit these posts after a second read is quite annoying, alas, the curse of anonymity!

[Cain]

EDIT:
I wrote something which is utterly redundant now that i understand what i was writing about

[Donald Renouf]

Don't post anonymously, then.

[Plette]

[s]Donald Renouf wrote on 10:51, 27th Feb 2004:
[s]Plette wrote on 00:55, 27th Feb 2004:[i]
Right, next: in the United States and Britain, etc. there is *supposed* to be a separation of church and state...

Actually, in Britain there isn't. The established churches are those of England and Scotland.

[/i]

Hrm, I learn something new every day. I knew there was a Church of Scotland and Church of England, but I always assumed they weren't affiliated with the government in any way. How does it work, exactly?

[Manic23]

[s]Unregisted User John Doe wrote on 03:43, 27th Feb 2004:
Several major typos that I don't want nit-picked:
*Representative, not "represenative"
*President, not preisdent
*Punishable, not punishible... that one is particularly atrocious

The inability to edit these posts after a second read is quite annoying, alas, the curse of anonymity!




Man, you need to get out more. How long did it take you to type that Thesis above? By the way, I have no opinion on the whole gay marriage thing being discussed here, so if you think I'm criticising you for your stance on the subject, i'm not!

[Plette]

[s]Unregisted User John Doe wrote on 03:32, 27th Feb 2004:


To Piette:
""Protecting the sanctity of marriage" is a religious idea, and relgion has no place in government. If the state should protect the sanctity of marriage, then should not adultery be a crime punishible by the state?"

To this I reply, in certain countries the state DOES take a role in the punishment of adultery... see Shari'a law. In the West, the state STILL takes a role--- although not quite in a "let's go and chuck stones at the wife" fashion.

Yes, CERTAIN countries. But some countries also allow bigamy, some countries use torture to extract information from prisoners, some countries drag people away in the night if they oppose the ruling polictical regime. The United States doesn't use them for a model in its government, and would never want to. So what other countries do is not really irrelevant.


In fact, we have a more painful way of dealing with adultery than public execution: it's called Family Court in America, a division of the civil court system. Judges there decide "punishment" for adultery by placing blame on the break-up of marriages and institution financial "penalties" (Alimony, custody removal, whatever.) In effect, it is the judiciary making adultery a punishable crime , in a manner of speaking.


Did you read the part of my post where I talked about that? Yes, the state takes infidelity into account when deciding who gets kids and who pays what in divorece, but that's based on the fact that the person in charge broke a contract of sorts, the terms of the marriage. It's a civil dispute between two people, not a judegement of the state on one person and not designed to be some kind of moral control by the state. The court would also be more inclined to give the children to whichever partner had a more stable life and income, and would avoid giving custody to a depressed person - yet being poor and sad are not crimes. If one party of the marriage suddenly decided to take a job in another country from their spouse, and never called or wrote leading to the breakup of the marriage, this would likely lead to them being seen as responsible party for the divorce and they might have to pay more alimony - but they've done nothing wrong, legally speaking. Adultery is treated along similar lines.

You might choose to see the purpose of the penalties as a punishment to adultery in a moral sense, but if you were to look more into the legalities I think you would find that is not the case.

[EviLTwiN]

techinically because of our royal family etc the church is still involved with our government... but it is cerimonial if it still exists at all.

Due to the multicultural nature of britain anyway the christian church cant have any effect on the lawmaking or government of this country.

What the canadian PM said is perfect. I respect someone who can for once put their religion aside and do what's right and in the interests of equality, and deal with their own personal religious problems privately.

A breath of fresh air... and why i like canada a lot more

[Donald Renouf]

[s]Plette wrote on 12:02, 27th Feb 2004:
Hrm, I learn something new every day. I knew there was a Church of Scotland and Church of England, but I always assumed they weren't affiliated with the government in any way. How does it work, exactly?

You know, I'm really not sure. The only practical application it has that I know of is that marriages contracted within the Church of England are civil as well as religious unions, whereas in other denominations a registrar has to be present to give the ceremony any legal oomph.

[The Cellar Bar]

John Doe,
what you call "nice sound bites" the rest of us a know as "quotes" and in this case they precisely described the feelings of the men who put together the Declaration of Independence. And the view they held was that
a) they had no inclination to see religion in the role of government whatsoever because of their experience of it over here
b) that mysteries and mythologies were fine in the context of home and place of worship but had no place in anything that required logic or rational thinking - such as the government of a country
c) none of the religions had any redeeming feature whatsoever in any case.

You can be as abusive as you want, sushine, but those are the facts and those remain the facts today. "In God We Trust" placed anywhere on any governmental responsibility is not something they would have contemplated.

It's also not "creator", it's "Creator"
which is totally different. They acknowledged that there was a Creator but did not actually specify "God" by name or by implication. They said "Creator" - they meant "Creator".

And yes, "WE" did beat the living daylights out of the British. Not by tumbling to our knees at Yorktown by chanting "In God we Trust" but by organised, ratonal logical thinking and determination. Just as we have taken on disease by refusing to believe that "God will provide" or reducing ignorance by incanting "God moves mysterious ways" All done by Reason and Rationale.

And I say "WE" because the vast majority of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was written by Scots - Madison, Wilson and Hamilton for instance. All Scots and all educated by Scots. All imbued with the stubborn, havily founded view that Man was capable of running his own affairs as a collective, owing nothing to any small self elected clique. And they made it absolutely clear that God had no place in the deliberations of Man in government.
Try some more

Thomas Jefferson
"It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his
doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism, he preaches
the efficacy of repentence toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it.

. "We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication ."

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I
contemplate with soveriegn reverence that act of the whole American people
which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

Just how much simpler did these men have to make it for you??

[Greebo]

"Therefore, by extension, I think you may be a little off when you say that it is a "Liberal Democracy" as well. There lies within our law no provision for protecting the interests of minorities. Do you propose I protect the minority interest of paedophiles or suicidal teenagers? Or polygamists? "

I think you'll find that the universal declaration of human rights, adopted, among others, by the USA, declares:
"Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."
"Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Essentially the Declaration is there to protect minority interests. If a country does not protect minority interests then it's entirely possible for severe discrimination to occur. If minority interests were not protected, black people would not have the equal rights they have now.
I put it to you that the only reason you are unwilling to protect minority interests is that you have not experienced discrimination about a factor about you that you cannot change.

Paedophiles is a bad example of a minority interest that should be protected. Paedophiles infringe on the rights of others, children no less, and thus they should not be protected.
Suicidal Teenagers is more complex, for me at least. On the one hand I think that if someone wishes to end their life then they have every right to do so. On the other, being a teenager is hardly the easiest time in someone's life, so perhaps the suicidal tendancies are related to that...I'll sit on the fence.
What's wrong with Polygamy if all parties are ok with it?

"2) Can't present to me a valid legal or philosophical argument that goes beyond inflammatory "civil rights" rhetoric that is legally and logically unsound, given the standard definition of "marriage" which is that which exists between a man and a woman. If anyone can provide reasons why a definition should be allowed to be changed, then please, humour me.) "

The common definition some time back was that marriage was between a white man and white woman, the definition has changed since then, why can't it be changed again?
I say to you again, calling gay marriage 'civil unions' is a form of discrimination because you are giving the exact same ceremony (type) a different name based on sexual orientation. It's like...the difference between a brand name beer and tesco's white label.

"So, just because something hasn't happened before, means we should legalize it? Ecstasy hadn't happened before, and in the 1980s it was banned across America. I haven't gotten married to a goldfish before (an extreme removal from the MAN/WOMAN definition of marriage), and there are all kinds of reasons why the government bans it. That argument is wholly invalid."

Don't be obtuse, you know perfectly well that wasn't what Amaunet was arguing. She was saying that to argue that something shouldn't be legalised because it hasn't been in the past it an invalid argument.
Can a goldfish give consent to be married? I think not - don't use strawman arguments.

"...Given that children of gay couples are more likely to be homosexual, following that path of reasoning then it can be said that children of straight couples are less likely to be homosexual than children of homosexual couples, yes."

I have already cited evidence that children of gay couples are not more likely to be homosexual - yet you continue to make this claim without citing evidence to support it?

I ask you for the second time:
If gay marriage was made legal, how would it affect you? If you can actually come up with a legitimate answer as to how this would infringe on your rights then I really would like to hear it.






[hr]http://www.greebo.org.uk - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.

[EviLTwiN]

"So, just because something hasn't happened before, means we should legalize it? Ecstasy hadn't happened before, and in the 1980s it was banned across America. "

--> see, i notice that rather than making valid arguments you're resorting to being intentionally stupid and obtuse.

Answer me who said we should legalise gay marriages simply because it hadnt happened before???
That's right, NO ONE.

I guess if you can't deny one argument you can always reply to a comment you wish had been made...

Nice one.

[EviLTwiN]

i also notice you just dismiss points as inflammatory civil rights rehetoric rather than actually explaining why you think our arguments are false.

Could you maybe elaborate on why we're wrong, like we do with your points?

Actually, don't bother, because you'll just mis-read them or be obtuse wont you

[Amanda]

as has i think been said already on this thread - for people who are so apparently open-minded and up for equality, you're being surprisingly nasty. i don't necessarily agree with john doe or donald renouf's beliefs, but i wouldn't dream of condemning them for that. just because they don't hold the same belief as i do doesn't make them wrong, doesn't make them a bigot, and doesn't make them immoral. i realise that it's a subject close to some peoples' hearts, but to others who are fighting for the cause, and spouting off about 'what does it matter to you if gay marriages are legalised', why not ask yourself 'what does it matter to me if someone holds a belief that i don't hold myself'?

i think that, as much as it's a right for everyone, whether hetero- or homo- sexual, to be allowed to marry, it's a right for everyone to be allowed to voice their own opinions. just because they're in the minority doesn't make them wrong.

i have to go to work now, otherwise i'd carry this on, but maybe people can appreciate other peoples' views instead of ranting at them so much?

[EviLTwiN]

but the thing is we're not stopping people having an opinion or anything...

we're simply condemming theirs, because that is part of our opinion.

If your opinion is that not allowing gay marriage is immoral, then by default you're accusing anyone arguing the other point of holding an immoral opinion.
And that's what we're doing.

What's wrong with that?


Most of my harshness is being aimed at people who are playing tricks with phrases, being obtuse, or making nonsense posts etc.

I don't hold any anger towards people who simply have the opposite view. It's the belief they hold that I believe to be immoral, but then nobody's perfect.


People need to keep separate:
a)calling an opinion immoral etc
and
b)calling a person immoral


and also:
c)getting annoyed with people for making nonsense statements, being obtuse, taking things out of context, and clouding the discussion.
and
d)getting annoyed with people for holding a belief.


I am doing a) and c).
There is nothing wrong with that

[EviLTwiN]

it's also nothing to do with equality and open-mindedness.

im openminded to intelligent discussion, to well thought out points, and to criticisms that actually make sense, as opposed to just waving a hand and calling all our arguments "inflamatory civil rights rhetoric".
It's people acting like that which pisses me off, and it just makes these threads even more complex.

when people start acting like morons (nothing to do with the opinion they hold, check out any thread i get annoyed on) then I start losing patience.

Being pro-equality and open-minded doesn't mean you have to pander to people not thinking thru their posts, or people trying to get away with wild statements.

People keep saying everyone has a right to their opinion, but that isn't the issue here. No-one denys that we all are entitled to our own opinion. The issue is us saying their opinions appear bigoted, and us asking for a non-religious reason for their beliefs.

If your religion says its wrong then you have to deal with that, and fine, have that opinion, but as stated the laws in the US aren't allowed to be based on religious beliefs... they're based on the rights of the people, which are in some cases being withheld.