Supreme Court Gay Rights Rulings: A Slippery Downhill Slope Toward What's Next?

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
Firstly, I want to acknowledge the respectful and thoughtful tone in which you have addressed me and this thread. Against the backdrop of the acrimonious, accusatory, and all-out combative responses that seem to riddle this thread, your voice is certainly a welcome one.

Well, I seen you were giving thoughtful opposition to the discussion that merited a considerate response. touchy subject for many, so you can appreciate that many will have strong feelings towards it, be it because of their preferences, their family/friends, or just on principle.
I have principle only really, otherwise I don't feel very strongly either way (principle being things from the government must be equal and fair). So, I debate from that point of view. Now, talk about PC verses Consoles for video games and I will call you and your mother unspeakable things for disagreeing with me

I suppose I have to concede that, yes, government involvement in marriage is part of the problem. I am not necessarily (contrary to what some might believe) bent on denying government benefits to same sex couples on par with those given in marriage. My fundamental contention has to do with the recognition of same sex relationships as marriage itself. I reject that concept for reasons that don't need to be belabored. Maybe I should pose this question. Would the gay community be sated if they were offered the same benefits that are offered to married couples, yet were denied the title of marriage?

I would suspect it would be quelled a bit, but still not ended. At least not from the thinking ones. Government has no business in marriage...unions, sure, but marriage..no business whatsoever. But, since they are, then it should be of equal standing that bends to no religious precedence in specific and is simply a union of adults for legal purposes. This includes name (else it will be seen as a government favoring a religion (or a group of religions) over others/none, which is not equal.

reply to post by LightOrange

What an incredibly asinine thing to say. The definition of marriage has changed thousands of times. These changes are even in the Bible... which I'm assuming is the piece of literature that you're claiming to have knowledge of. Come on, now.

I have already acknowledged and addressed this point. Marriage certainly has been rethought, reworked, and redefined throughout history. Only within its own perimeter, however, which of course was and is between people of the opposite sex. I have yet to see evidence otherwise, and until I do, I don't see how your point does much for the rebuttal of my argument.

Hah. I'll tell you what the negative consequences of redifing marriage were: the publicly zealous slaughter, slavery, humiliation, and segregation of gay people. Maybe they shouldn't have changed it 4,000 years ago, or 600 years after that, 250 years after that, 350 after that, etc..

I don't follow. Please elaborate.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Do you love your wife? Does she love you? Do you feel that she is the one for you? What if you were told by your government that you were not allowed to be married to her? What if you were told that you were free to marry, but you could only marry a person that you did not love or have any attraction to? This is what is happening to heterosexuals.

If it were ever the case where the government refused to acknowledge my relationship with my wife, I can't really say that it would bother me all that much. It wouldn't stop me being committed to her and it certainly wouldn't stop me from loving her.

However, for reasons I've already laid out, the government's recognition and protection of marriage between a man and a woman is not simply arbitrary...there is a reason for it. Therefore the scenario you are posing is highly unlikely to ever become a reality.

They are told that they can indeed marry, but they have to marry someone they will never really be attracted to. That is the right that YOU have, that they do not have. Follow?

Sure. You must consider that many other relationships that possess these same qualifications (love, attraction, etc.) are also denied the right to marry solely based on these criteria. Are you arguing that they also should gain that right?

Originally posted by Analqueen2011

Originally posted by evc1shop
reply to post by Darth_Prime

 

I just think it's about time to let it go and solve issues that are far more important in the global scheme.

Uh, no, its really not. My biggest issue with all of this is that a lot of employers do not have to allow the partner of a same sex couple access to their group insurance plan. This can be a life and death situation. Not to mention hospital visitations and power of attorney. These things should most certainly not be put on the back burner. Check your heterosexual privilege. Thanks.

In many companies, the cost of the spouse's insurance is so outrageous that it's not affordable anyways because the employer only pays part of the premium for the employee. So, well, many stay at home moms also are excluded, and be a life or death situation. Why do we have our insurance as being part of the benefits package anyway? Oh, ya, it's the result of another time when our gov't stuck their noses into places that they shouldn't have stuck it and put a cap as to how much companies could pay the employees, so the companies just found a way around it and start competed with other companies by providing better and better benefits...of which, healthcare was one major one!

Hospital visitations?? Maybe instead of limiting to just family members, the hospital should decide on just how many visitors a person is allowed and let them pick who they wish to visit them? It's just another right taken from us! Same goes for power of attorney.

Most of today's problems can be traced back to people taking the right to make one's own decisions away from them and seeing it upon themselves to make them for them!

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
If it were ever the case where the government refused to acknowledge my relationship with my wife, I can't really say that it would bother me all that much. It wouldn't stop me being committed to her and it certainly wouldn't stop me from loving her.

You know, I'll bet if you have had to deal with discrimination all your life and then being told on top of it that you couldn't be married to your wife -- you'd be pretty upset.

Sure. You must consider that many other relationships that possess these same qualifications (love, attraction, etc.) are also denied the right to marry solely based on these criteria. Are you arguing that they also should gain that right?

Your relationship with your wife possess these same qualifications, no? That's the reason why most people get married - because the love and attraction to another is very strong - strong enough to last a lifetime.

And we come back to consenting adults where there is no victim. You and your wife are consenting adults. One of you is not a child, one of you is not an animal, one of you is not an inanimate object. You are not directly related, so you cannot have a child with a high risk of birth defects (victim). Whether or not you two are able or decide to have children is really no one's business. This is the EXACT same scenario with two men who want to get married. As long as one of them is not a child, or an animal or an inanimate object, or directly related, there is no reason why they cannot be married. Whether they can or cannot have children is no one's business. It's not your business, and it's not the government's business.

And if two men or two women, or two opposite sex people for that matter, decide to get married for reasons other than love or attraction (i.e., to take advantage of tax benefits or other money savings, etc.) that is no one's business either.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Well, I seen you were giving thoughtful opposition to the discussion that merited a considerate response. touchy subject for many, so you can appreciate that many will have strong feelings towards it, be it because of their preferences, their family/friends, or just on principle.
I have principle only really, otherwise I don't feel very strongly either way (principle being things from the government must be equal and fair). So, I debate from that point of view. Now, talk about PC verses Consoles for video games and I will call you and your mother unspeakable things for disagreeing with me

In all fairness, I was prepared to be met with hostility, as this subject is as you have worded it "touchy".

In terms of principals and equality regarding the government's recognition of marriage, as I'm sure you have gathered, I have a slightly different perspective. First, I want to reiterate a point I made in a previous post that if the government chose to stop acknowledging marriage I really would have no qualm with that. However, I believe the reasons governments have, up until now, protected and encouraged marriage between man and woman has to do with the benefit those marriages have provided to culture. In fact, marriage/family are the building block of society, and were established well before government came into being. The government defining marriage in the way that it has is not just arbitrary as some would like to argue, but is based on the fundamentals of what marriage has been deemed throughout history, and the benefits this institution has provided to society. It is much more than merely two consenting adults in love.

I would suspect it would be quelled a bit, but still not ended. At least not from the thinking ones. Government has no business in marriage...unions, sure, but marriage..no business whatsoever. But, since they are, then it should be of equal standing that bends to no religious precedence in specific and is simply a union of adults for legal purposes. This includes name (else it will be seen as a government favoring a religion (or a group of religions) over others/none, which is not equal.

Agreed. In the endeavor for "equality" a same sex couple will never be contented until they are able to share in every aspect of a heterosexual marriage (with the exception of the man/woman physical compatibility component). I see your point, and can't help but agree with you to a large degree. Government involvement in marriage really has gotten us into quite the pickle. On the basis of equality, you will always have groups arguing for the same rights granted others in which they perceive to have the same qualifications...this is my main contention, and one that I feel needs to be considered. If a marriage, in terms of the government's involvement, should be redefined as "simply a union of adults for legal purposes," this arbitrary redefinition opens of the gates wide for all kinds of claims for equality that we as a society might view as invalid at present, but on the same grounds will inevitably work their way in.

Here is a more easily digestible way of explaining this from a previous post:

Just because Bill Gates' next door neighbor might like to be entitled to the Gate's family inheritance, doesn't mean that he can insist on arbitrarily changing the definition of the word heir to read "a family member and/or one's next door neighbor." In this scenario, clearly, nobody would argue that there is discrimination taking place because the neighbor doesn't get what he wants. Heir means heir. Just as marriage means marriage.

reply to post by kaylaluv

You know, I'll bet if you have had to deal with discrimination all your life and then being told on top of it that you couldn't be married to your wife -- you'd be pretty upset.
[/quote
Having a right revoked on the premise of the redefinition of a longstanding institution (such as marriage) is an entirely different story than the inconvenient reality of not being qualified in the first place. Nevertheless, I can understand that after a life of being mistreated, you feel a sense of entitlement to make up for the wrongdoings you attribute to the intolerance and disrespect of society.

Your relationship with your wife possess these same qualifications, no? That's the reason why most people get married - because the love and attraction to another is very strong - strong enough to last a lifetime.

Of course. But our relationship also possesses one key quality that yours does not, which just so happens to be the one quality that makes our union a marriage and not rather than just a committed relationship.

And we come back to consenting adults where there is no victim. You and your wife are consenting adults. One of you is not a child, one of you is not an animal, one of you is not an inanimate object. You are not directly related, so you cannot have a child with a high risk of birth defects (victim). Whether or not you two are able or decide to have children is really no one's business. This is the EXACT same scenario with two men who want to get married. As long as one of them is not a child, or an animal or an inanimate object, or directly related, there is no reason why they cannot be married. Whether they can or cannot have children is no one's business. It's not your business, and it's not the government's business.

And if we are so bent on changing one longstanding definition (in this case marriage) what's to stop society from redefining what constitutes a victim?

And if two men or two women, or two opposite sex people for that matter, decide to get married for reasons other than love or attraction (i.e., to take advantage of tax benefits or other money savings, etc.) that is no one's business either.

Of course it is. As long as the government (we the people) are funding the benefits provided these marriages, it is clearly our business. The kind of thing you are referencing above is akin to insurance fraud, and should be dealt with in a similar manner.

edit on 3-7-2013 by Afewloosescrews because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
Having a right revoked on the premise of the redefinition of a longstanding institution (such as marriage) is an entirely different story than the inconvenient reality of not being qualified in the first place. Nevertheless, I can understand that after a life of being mistreated, you feel a sense of entitlement to make up for the wrongdoings you attribute to the intolerance and disrespect of society.

Yeah, a little bit like Rosa Parks not being willing to sit at the back of the bus anymore. Blacks were NEVER allowed to sit anywhere they wanted on the bus. They weren't "qualified" to sit at the front because they weren't white. That qualification has changed and been redefined. Some white folks weren't too happy about it, but their grandchildren seem to be fine with it. Your grandchildren will be fine with gay marriage as well - you'll see.

But our relationship also possesses one key quality that yours does not, which just so happens to be the one quality that makes our union a marriage and not rather than just a committed relationship.

And what quality would that be? If you are saying because it involves opposite genders, why is that so important? Because it's always been that way? What a silly reason. Because of procreation? Many opposite gender marriages don't end up with children. Are those just "committed relationships" as well? For the record, I am a married heterosexual, just like you.

And if we are so bent on changing one longstanding definition (in this case marriage) what's to stop society from redefining what constitutes a victim?

Ummm, I think it's because victims will always be those who have bad things done to them against their will. You know, kind of like how gays are treated... Some longstanding definitions should be changed, like how marriage used to mean that the man owned his wife like a piece of property. That was a change for the better, because it allowed the woman to be less of a victim. Allowing two men to marry who want to be together for life and possibly raise an adopted family together in a loving stable home is a change for the better as well.

Of course it is. As long as the government (we the people) are funding the benefits provided these marriages, it is clearly our business. The kind of thing you are referencing above is akin to insurance fraud, and should be dealt with in a similar manner.

Well, seeing as how there is nothing in the marriage license application process that determines why two American citizens are getting married, I don't agree with you.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Sorry about the quotes going all wonky in my last post. Not sure what happened there. Anyway, where were we?

Yeah, a little bit like Rosa Parks not being willing to sit at the back of the bus anymore. Blacks were NEVER allowed to sit anywhere they wanted on the bus. They weren't "qualified" to sit at the front because they weren't white. That qualification has changed and been redefined. Some white folks weren't too happy about it, but their grandchildren seem to be fine with it. Your grandchildren will be fine with gay marriage as well - you'll see.

No. This argument is a non sequitur as I have attempted to explain in previous posts. Very unlike the fundamental civil rights that were being denied black people during that time, in the current discussion, nobody is being denied rights that are allowed others. Even the comparison of inter-racial marriage laws (which some have suggested) doesn't apply, because in with those laws in place the right for a man and a woman to marry WAS being withheld discriminately.

And what quality would that be? If you are saying because it involves opposite genders, why is that so important? Because it's always been that way? What a silly reason. Because of procreation? Many opposite gender marriages don't end up with children. Are those just "committed relationships" as well? For the record, I am a married heterosexual, just like you.

That is correct. It has nothing to do with hanging on to antiquity for antiquity's sake as I've been accused of. It has everything to do with the notion that society assuming the authority to arbitrarily change the definition of an institution that rather than being defined, should only be described. Marriage is what it is. Can you not recognize the danger in granting society the power to simply change innate definitions at will?

Ummm, I think it's because victims will always be those who have bad things done to them against their will. You know, kind of like how gays are treated... Some longstanding definitions should be changed, like how marriage used to mean that the man owned his wife like a piece of property. That was a change for the better, because it allowed the woman to be less of a victim. Allowing two men to marry who want to be together for life and possibly raise an adopted family together in a loving stable home is a change for the better as well.

The fundamental definition of marriage has always been that of an opposite sex relationship. This has never changed. To imply that the basic premise of marriage has changed in the past is simply wrong. If you think we should allow governments, special interest groups, or society the power to arbitrarily change fundamental definitions so be it. I, however, cannot accept that.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

Can you not recognize the danger in granting society the power to simply change innate definitions at will?

At will? It wasn't 'on a whim'. You keep insinuating it is.

That's why your argument is not convincing at all.

That's the only way to legitimize these alleged concerns. That 'on a whim' society will change it to include bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, incest.

Sure if that were the case I would relate to your OP. However that's not grounded in reality. Movements have to be made, they have to be convincing enough to sway Public opinion. You see this happening with bestiality? Okay you do it seems. I don't. I see no trend towards that cultural perception. I see no evidence it's congruent with our morals as they are.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


You are never going to agree with my position, and I will never agree with yours. You are either extremely uncomfortable with legitimizing homosexual unions with marriage licenses, or you are just afraid of any kind of change, even if that change is for the better. Regardless, our society continues to progress, which means change WILL happen. It is already happening. My opinion is that this particular change is for the better, because it includes people who are good and decent, and who want to live the kind of life that the rest of their family, friends and colleagues live. A life that includes love, home and marriage with someone they want to spend their life with. I think that will lead to a more stable homosexual community. Your opinion is that it will lead to all kinds of unimaginable horrors. Let's give it a hundred years and see who's right, shall we?

reply to post by kaylaluv


You won't have to wait 100 years.

He put a number on it already

This threat is real. Those of you who might be scoffing now, mark my words...within the next 20 years we will see activists the likes of which we couldn't have dreamed attempting to piggy tail on the strides the gay rights movement has made for "civil liberties".

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

You won't have to wait 100 years.

He put a number on it already

This threat is real. Those of you who might be scoffing now, mark my words...within the next 20 years we will see activists the likes of which we couldn't have dreamed attempting to piggy tail on the strides the gay rights movement has made for "civil liberties".

Good - I'll should still be around to see what really happens.

I'm probably stepping in to this thread a little late, but I've read through most of the comments and made an honest attempt to be sympathetic to both camps on this debate. While, as a young male, it would be most comfortable to stand on the side of the popular cultural current, I've found myself unable to do so without fighting with myself a bit. I have friends who are gay and I fully appreciate the poignancy of their struggle. I can understand their feeling of elation with this apparent "win" but sadly I don't think the savory taste of victory will last long before it starts turning in their stomach. While the OP might be erring on the side of paranoia, I have yet to see any totally convincing rebuttals to the main point raised...that for the sake of "equality" are we neglecting to have foresight into the potential negative consequences of treating marriage as an arbitrary construct? While one might not see any of these consequences manifest as a direct result of sanctioned same sex marriage (which after reading through this thread I find to be an especially oxymoronic idea anyhow), what precedent are we setting in trying to redefine the very essence of one of the most foundational institutions in human society?

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by


Afewloosescrews

 

You are never going to agree with my position, and I will never agree with yours. You are either extremely uncomfortable with legitimizing homosexual unions with marriage licenses, or you are just afraid of any kind of change, even if that change is for the better. Regardless, our society continues to progress, which means change WILL happen. It is already happening. My opinion is that this particular change is for the better, because it includes people who are good and decent, and who want to live the kind of life that the rest of their family, friends and colleagues live. A life that includes love, home and marriage with someone they want to spend their life with. I think that will lead to a more stable homosexual community. Your opinion is that it will lead to all kinds of unimaginable horrors. Let's give it a hundred years and see who's right, shall we?

This is a typical response that I've seen over and over again throughout this thread. Rather than thoughtfully grappling with the questions being raised, many opt to try and frame the argument as "well if you don't agree with me, you are either a homophobe or a cave-man who's afraid to use the newly invented wheel." This sort of ad hominem behavior only hurts your case. Let's have a real discussion and parse through this like thinking adults. Change is more likely to be "for the better" if well-informed.

Because it will remain Human

i'm still a Human regardless of my sexuality, so why do we deny some humans things based on who they are attracted to?

we can debate on if Marriage is a religious thing, or as many have pointed out happened before religion came and appointed it theirs, we can debate on the altering of the 'meaning' as it's been altered before,

regardless, we are still dealing with Humans, gay or straight

we are not asking the world to agree or not, just that we are afforded equal rights as Humans

reply to post by Stephanos

what precedent are we setting in trying to redefine the very essence of one of the most foundational institutions in human society?

What precedent do you think we are setting?

Are you in agreement with the OP that as a direct result society will soon further append the Rights to bestiality, pedophilia and other "unimaginable horrors".

Need to know where you're coming from before I have a response

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
Because it will remain Human


we are not asking the world to agree or not, just that we are afforded equal rights as Humans

I also advocate equal rights for all humans. In terms of marriage, what rights aren't afforded to you that are afforded to others?

Originally posted by Stephanos

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
Because it will remain Human


we are not asking the world to agree or not, just that we are afforded equal rights as Humans

I also advocate equal rights for all humans. In terms of marriage, what rights aren't afforded to you that are afforded to others?

In terms of marriage, not be able to marry the partner of are choice,

now with the ruling on DOMA, and the steady increase in states legalizing same sex marriage, i understand we are slowly receiving those rights,

but we still had to sit around and wait whilst others voted on our 'right' to marry, we are taking steps forward, but there are many more to take, especially without the backlash of a gateway to 'Bestiality and pedophilia'

reply to post by Stephanos

In terms of marriage, what rights aren't afforded to you that are afforded to others?

If you think it's equal and fair because we allow gay people to marry heterosexuals then you're viewing the issue absent a crucial component:

The whole "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" stuff.

You know damn well if you could only marry the same sex you would understand this point.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

What precedent do you think we are setting?

Are you in agreement with the OP that as a direct result society will soon further append the Rights to bestiality, pedophilia and other "unimaginable horrors".

Unlike the OP, I am not so capricious as to try to predict the future. I suppose I am just more wary than most about supporting the warping of essential definitions to make a certain group (marginalized as they may be) feel better. Perhaps I am not as trusting of humanity as you but I believe it may have unforeseen ill-effects, not necessarily just in the realm of marriage. If we allow ourselves the option to append something as inextricable as the nature of marriage, I believe the potential for fallout is self-evident, regardless of what form it will take.