Same-Sex Marriage to be Banned in 3 States

posted by timeless test

posted by donwhite
So I’m a situational ethics person. And I offer, “who is not?”

Indeed, but that's the whole point this is a "situational ethics" debate, not a religious one. If certain zealots want to hang their views on a religious peg that's up to them - it doesn't make anti-gay views religious per se.

Sorry about that. I’m wearing my anti-religion sensitively on my sleeve.

Well there are certainly differences between our two countries' cultures and attitudes but you would be foolish in the extreme to pretend that he is unique in his views. What should be of more concern is that as long as homosexul couples are given preferential treatment, then this will only further antagonise the anti-gay lobby and encourage discrimination.

That is true. But to me this [gay thing] is reminiscent of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. It was also heavily criticized for binging the dirty truth into the open. That struggle is not yet over, but it has made very great progress. It has been dormant for a couple decades, so it may be about time to take to the streets again?

No, I'm not confusing these arguments at all. It was your contention that anti-gay activity equated to religion, I simply pointed out that that there were plenty of people who were capable of rational thought processes which do not agree with yours without the need to hide behind religion.

I was wrong. I jumped without looking.

What I know of US religious influence is frequently of great concern to someone who holds no affiliation to any organised faith, (isn't that an oxymoron anyway), but if that statement was true I would be hugely surprised and worried . . if someone wants to produce a convincing and compelling argument more thoughtful than pointing a metaphorical finger and shouting "religious bigot" is likely to be necessary.

I attribute our excessive religiosity to A) our own short history, and B) our disdain for the study of English history which is Life in a Capsule. IMO. We have no Thomas Beckett or Thomas More. No Oliver Cromwell. And for sure no Glorious Revolution. And how many Americans know Pope Innocent III absolved King John from the Magna Carta?

No sooner had King John agreed to the Charter than he went back on his word. Pope Innocent III absolved John from his oath to grant the demands, because he believed that no anointed monarch should be made to sign away his rights www.camelotintl.com...

Your rebuke is well earned and quietly received.


Historical Reference

The Magna Carta (The Great Charter)
Preamble: John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings.

Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry, archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry, Benedict of Rochester, bishops; of Master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of our lord the Pope, of brother Aymeric (master of the Knights of the Temple in England), and of the illustrious men William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, William, earl of Salisbury, William, earl of Warenne, William, earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway (constable of Scotland), Waren Fitz Gerold, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert De Burgh (seneschal of Poitou), Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip d'Aubigny, Robert of Roppesley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and others, our liegemen . .

This is but one of three different translations I found of the Magna Carta; it was originally done in Latin, probably by the Archbishop, Stephen Langton. It was in force for only a few months, when it was violated by the king. Just over a year later, with no resolution to the war, the king died, being succeeded by his 9-year old son, Henry III. The Charter (Carta) was reissued again, with some revisions, in 1216, 1217 and 1225. As near as I can tell, the version presented here is the one that preceeded all of the others; nearly all of it's provisions were soon superceded by other laws, and none of it is effective today. The two other versions I found each professed to be the original, as well. The basic intent of each is the same. Gerald Murphy

Permission is hereby given to download and redistribute this file, provided appropriate point of origin credit is given to the preparer and the National Public Telecomputing Network. www.constitution.org...
www.constitution.org...
www.lrc.state.ky.us...

[edit on 11/8/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by timeless test



I wouldn't disagree with your sentiments here Skadi but gay marriage, civil partnership or whatever tag you want to put on it raises some interesting anomalies.

For instance, in the UK it is now possible for two homosexuals to enter into a civil partnership which confers very significant rights in terms of taxation and entitlement to benefits such as pensions. However, if two brothers, sisters, or simply two friends (who do not wish to acquire the "gay" tag), live together all of their lives they receive none of those advantages in law.

Civil partnership legislation opens a whole can of worms & why should relationships such as that above be discriminated against?

Because when you enter a marriage, you are entering a binding contract legally. Just living together is not legally binding, no legal vows and commitments are made. And because people who live together with friends and relatives are subject to change often, there is little element of stability. For example, There is nothing binding me to a roomate or friend if I decide to suddenly move out.

A spouse is different. When you marry, your property becomes joint. If you up and leave your spouse, divorce can insue, and thus, legal requirements such as alimony must be set.

Originally posted by MasterJediAnd to say its like double-jointedness, are you not in fact saying that it is a birth DEFECT? Very well put =).

In order to avoid the wrath of the liberal armies I was actually trying very hard not to liken it to a defect or disability but yes, the situation is undeniably similar in that it it is a naturally occuring "condtiion" but not a normal one.

I'm not saying there should be laws against homosexuality, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be encouraged.

A wholly rational point of view, and all achieved without the need to resort to the crutch of religion.

posted by MasterJedi

We are taught to tolerate many things in this country, but allowing marriage is beyond tolerating and stems into accepting, which I personally do not. I'm not saying there should be laws against homosexuality, I'm just saying thatit shouldn't be encouraged.

Then why do you not outlaw divorces? Abolish divorce. As in the Holy Sacrement, "What God has joined together let no man put asunder."

As in King Henry VIII in 1538?

Don, personally I feel no need to abolish divorce because neither myself nor my wife believe in divorce. But if they did, I would more than likely agree to it with certain stipulations for infidelity and such.

But you are attributing my beliefs to religious fervor and I am not in the least a religious man, although I feel I am a very moral person. And what dictates my morals is not a 2000 year old manual but rather common sense.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
A spouse is different. When you marry, your property becomes joint. If you up and leave your spouse, divorce can insue, and thus, legal requirements such as alimony must be set.

Agreed absolutely, but consider this example (a true one but with the names changed).

It concerns Albert, a lovely old guy who used to live across the road from me with his sister Doris both in their 70s. Albert used to be married but to an appaling woman who was best described as a tart, she put herself about the community in a brazen manner in a time when such behaviour was utterly shocking to most of society. She lived off his earnings and exploited his good nature, in short, she was a "wrong 'un". When Albert eventually divorced her, (unusual in those days), he set up home with his unmarried sister Doris who then acted as housekeeper and companion to him for the rest of his life - they were a generous, kindly and delightful couple to know.

When Albert died his property, (the "family" home), passed to Doris who was liable to pay inheritance tax on it because transfers between brother and sister are not exempt from tax in the same way as those between spouses.

Now this took place some years ago but even today this would still have been the end result as brother and sister cannot enter into a lawful civil partnership and so a homsexual couple who have "married" receive preferential treatment in law.

So we have a well intentioned law which is flawed because of a government's anxiety to be sympathetic to a politically correct issue whilst not addressing a wider injustice which is the point I was trying to make.

Originally posted by donwhite
Your rebuke is well earned and quietly received.

...was not intended as a rebuke don.

Nevertheless, a pleasure to debate the matter with you.

Timeless test,

Your example is interesting, but different. I myself do not believe in inheritance taxes at all, so I believe Doris should not have had to paid them. Death is a hard time for those left behind, and the government shows how low it is when taxing peoples legacy to loved ones. Especially with relatives.

But we are dealing with more than just inheritance. Though Im currently living in England, Im from the U.S., so Ill give you some examples.

In America, we have no NHS. Private health insurance is the best we can hope for. We usually get it from our jobs. In a private health insurance policy, they will only allow you to cover spouses and kids, and in some cases, dependants if you are supporting a relative. Your lover, roomate, or buddy are not covered. Thus, lets say you have a gay couple, unmarried. One works, and the other choses to stay at home and be a domestic engineer (PC for housewife). The working parter might get health insurance from work. However, his/her lover cannot be covered by that policy because they are not spouses or legal dependants, and as of such, if the stay at home partner were to get very sick, they would be forced to pay for medical care out of pocket, which financially ruins thousands of Americans every year. Allowing gay people to marry means that gay people now can provide better for their loved ones, and can have more financial security.

Another issue is visitation rights for the dying. In certain instances when a person is in critical condition or terminally ill, only family is allowed to see them, not friends. There have been cases where gay partners, not legally family, have been denied the right to see their partners.

There is also income tax filing. Married couples get to file jointly on their income taxes, which has benefits of its own.

As you can see, there are legitimate reasons why it is important to alot of gay people that they have the right to marriage, as it opens up alot of abilities to care for loved ones they never had before.

Plus, like I said before, encouragment of monogamy and stable relationships is something the gay community really needs.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
As you can see, there are legitimate reasons why it is important to alot of gay people that they have the right to marriage, as it opens up alot of abilities to care for loved ones they never had before.

I agree Skadi but my argument is that that gay couples, (and God knows how I hate that use of the word "gay" but that is another issue), are no more deserving of those benefits than other couples who are not marrried in the conventional sense. Why, for instance should two spinsters, (a charming old fashioned expression), who have lived together in a purely platonic but commited relationship for 30 years have less civil rights than a homosexual couple who have gone through a "marriage" ceremony in the last 3 weeks? Should one of those women be denied the right to visit their "partner" in hospital or give consent for organ donation, (for instance), whilst a member of a homosexual couple is treated more favourably?

Plus, like I said before, encouragment of monogamy and stable relationships is something the gay community really needs.

It's a vaild point of view but I find it hard to accept encouragement of homsexual marriages whilst conventional marriages are frequently having incentives removed.

domestic engineer (PC for housewife).

*tries not to s'n-word'*

There difference here, Timeless, is love. Romantic love. Or at least the perception of it. It is something that our society tends to hold in high regard. And the feelings of romantic love run far deeper than those of the platonic persuiasion.

And while I agree that marriage incentives are declining in heterosexual marriages, you cant blame homosexuals. Its the fault of the government or special interest groups. Homsexuals should not be denied something just because a bunch of idiots are screwing it up for others. Homosexuals wont get any more benefits or special treatment than heterosexual marriages. They simply want to be able to enter long term legal commitments with the man/woman of their dreams.

Domestic engineer......yeah, it is pretty funny. Its amazing what PC newspeak can do for the prestige of the once mundane.

I think for the most part people are willing to just look the other way when it comes to the gay issue and had it not been for things that irritate some of us they could probably have marriage. First of all stop forcing the gay agenda on us stop telling our children when they are little that it is ok to be gay. A 5 year old kid does not need to have that thrown at them in school when they have no ideal what sexuality even is. Stop acting as if Gays are a race of people because they are not. I get so disgusted when I here them compared to some minority. I think there is some way for them to work on some kind of a partnership contract that should allow them rights without it being marriage.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
There difference here, Timeless, is love. Romantic love. Or at least the perception of it. It is something that our society tends to hold in high regard.

Nothing to do with romance in my opinion. The traditional support and encouragement for conventional relationships is born out of the deep seated desire to support the nuclear family with children brought up in a stable and conventional relationship. Society has valued the dutiful compliance of wives much more highly than their husbands respect or love until the very recent past. Witness the fact that rape in marriage was not recognised as a crime until not so many years ago.

I'm certainly not blaming homsexuals for the injustices of the current laws, my views are simply born of frustration with poor legislation which owes more to political correctness than to social justice.

And the feelings of romantic love run far deeper than those of the platonic persuiasion.

Call me a cynic, (or maybe just a bloke), but we're going to have to agree to disagree about that one.

There surely must be something fundamentally wrong with people that they are so disturbed by the actions of a group of people which doesn't in any way, shape or form have an impact on them personally that they feel the need to legislate the lives of their countrymen. I would say my home state of Virginia makes me ashamed at their decision to enact such legislation but thats not a powerful enough word to describe it. The rest of the world will surely take note of the caliber of people who live here in the US and remember that its not all its cracked up to be in "the land of the free and home of the brave".

Yes! Finally a vote for traditional rights. I voted here in Wisconsin for the amendment and, along with 60% of Wisconsinites am glad it passed. Call gay-gay, bi-gay, bi-straight, gay-whatever couples anything you want just don't call them married... at least not in Wisconsin.
Oh and I think the totals would have been much higher in favor of the amendment were it not for the confusing way the amendment was worded and for the gay rights people auto-calling people telling them that voting against the amendment was somehow for family rights. Nice try.

Originally posted by Scyman
Its odd how in the city of Denver one can posses an ounce of MJ. Yet the state that same bill didnt pass...I guess one might say denver is a bit more liberal then the rest of the state

Interesting that you should bring this up. In my Juvenile Justice class we were taught the legalization of Marijuana was a neo-classical(or if you prefer neo-conservative move). As we are in the neo-conservative age of Criminal Justice and have been since the early 1980's with the Reagan Admin.

Anyhow, I dont care if gays can marry or not. It doesnt matter to me because it doesnt affect me. But I dont think it would bother me if they could as long as they follow the same rules as straight couples and dont ask for any kind of special treatment, then its cool with me I guess.

Gays can have a civil ceremony which will deliver to them everything that they reasonably need in this situation. Leave regular marriage alone for the purposes for which it was designed eg. to develop a natural family in support of the society and its growth and development.

A lot of arguing in this debate has ignored the obvious: the cost of granting rights to gays and the weird consequences of divorce, obtaining children and child rearing. These issues are not at all the same as for heterosexual couples and should not be waved off as being the same and a requirement of state legislated equality which is a vague concept in the first place.

Originally posted by angrypsycho1977


those of you that live in or near states that have passed such measures, can you tell me how you and your community have been effected? from what i have heard from my canadian friends, nothing changed really at all, except maybe some cold feet.

One thing similar to the U.S., the Prime Minister keeps trying to ressurect the issue as though it had some relevance to the current issues that need to be addressed.