Interesting column on the gay marriage debate by William Safire in the New York Times today: "On Same-Sex Marriage By William Safire, The New York Times I'm a "libcon." To that small slice of the political spectrum called libertarian conservative, personal freedom is central. With a consistency that strikes some as foolish, I'm pro-choice on abortion before the quickening, pro-choice on my investment in Social Security and pro-choice on private competition to Medicare. That also explains why libcons demand that government protect rather than intrude on privacy, and why we excoriate government officials who permit media mergers that limit public access to all shades of opinion. The libcon credo: respect majority rule and deeply ingrained cultural custom unless they step on individual freedom, at which point wave the Bill of Rights and holler. That mind-set, so helpful in providing instant certitude on everything, is generating the jangle of cognitive dissonance on same-sex marriage. The issue is often posed as one of simple legal fairness: why shouldn't two adults of the same sex who want to become life partners have the same opportunity and gain the same legal rights of government insurance, pension protection and hospital visitation as a couple who choose op-sex marriage? That encouragement to making homosexual relationships more permanent is the primary argument for "civil union," the euphemism for "legal marriage but don't call it that because it makes most straight people angry." Many gay people, like many casually cohabiting heterosexuals, will embrace the principle but not the practice, as it would involve the consequences of dissolution of such a contract: alimony, child support when applicable, division of assets, and the law firm of Nasty, Brutal and Short. The libertarian in me says: civil union corrects an inequity in the law. There should be no legal or economic discrimination against homosexuals anywhere in the U.S. And what is lawful in Vermont or Massachusetts should be recognized in every other state because we are one nation when it comes to basic rights, popular statutes to the contrary notwithstanding. That's the easy part. More difficult is the argument that the primary purpose of society's bedrock institution is to conceive and rear children in a home of male and female role models known as caring parents. But now that there are adoptive and scientific substitutes for old-fashioned procreation, and now that 43 percent of first marriages fail, the nuclear family ideal is not what it used to be. Little lock is left in wedlock. But what about the religious dimension to marriage? The ceremony performed by clergy in a house of worship involves a sacrament, invokes God's blessing on a man and a woman who take a solemn vow on entering a spiritual and not just a physical union. Won't pressure to marry people of the same sex split denominations, dismay millions of churchgoers and infuriate many ardent believers? Yes. Divisive it would surely be. Proponents of s-s-m who want more than a city hall wedding who want more than a civil union would seek clergy and congregants who welcome them. It would be a source of bitter doctrinal debate in many neighborhoods. So was racial intermarriage; but this faces scriptural admonitions as in the doomed city of Sodom. That brings us to the Supreme Court decision striking down anti-sodomy law in Texas. That victory for privacy slammed the bedroom door in the face of prosecutors who disapproved of forms of consensual sex engaged in by homosexuals and others. The stinging dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia, however, was prescient: the court decision opened the door to agitation for same-sex marriage. It may not be the slippery slope to polygamy, polyandry, incest and bestiality, but s-s-m is surely upon us. The conservative in me wonders: if equal rights can be assured by civil union, why are some gays pushing so hard for the word "marriage"? The answer is that the ancient word conveys a powerful message. Civil union connotes toleration of homosexuality, with its attendant recognition of an individual's civil rights; but marriage connotes society's full approval of homosexuality, with previous moral judgment reversed. The pace of profound cultural change is too important to be left to activist judges. As moral-political issues go, this big one deserves examination in communities with minds that can deal with internal contradictions which is the libcon way. 12-01-03 06:50 EST Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company."293 responses total.
I think Safire is waffling. Early in that piece, he says that our country ought to have one set of basic rights, and that the right of two consenting adults to be able to get married ought to be such a right. He also says it is teh responsibility of the courts to uphold those rights. But then at the end, he seems to contradict himself, and says judges shouldn't decide this, that states and communities need to decide. Also, at one point Safire says: "marriage connotes society's full approval of homosexuality, with previous moral judgment reversed." I think Safire is wrong here as well. That is the same faulty logic right wingers use in the abortion debate. They argue that iif you are pro-choice you APPROVE of abortion. In fact, one can strongly DISAPPROVE of both abortions and gay marriages, and still vote that those things ought to be legal because they think people should have the right to make their own decisions in those matters. I can be against a bill to outlaw smoking, and it DOESN'T mean that I approve of smoking. Also, I disagree that there need be religious grounds to oppose gay marriages. The courts can only make gay marriage legal under the law. They CANNOT force any church to perform gay marriage ceremonies, if those marriages are against church doctrine, or temple doctrine. All legalizing gay marriage means is that a gay couple who are in love, can take out a marriage license, and can legally try to find a church, any church-- even the church of Elvis in Vegas or whatever-- that might perform a ceremony for them if they so choose. You are not approving of gay marriage by agreeing to such a law. You are simply saying that two consenting adults in this free country ought to be able to make their own decisions about their own lives. That ought to be, as Safire says before contradicting himself, a basic right.
And this is by the way going to be a big issue in the upcoming election year. Bush and his advisors are just salivating at the idea of turning the general election into a referendum on the "institution of marriage" Particularly if his opponent is Howard Dean, who as governor of Vermont, signed the first such law in the country to legalize civil unions for gays. The Bush people will argue that Massachusetts legalizing gay marriages is some proof that the country is going to hell. They will say that we ought to cling to a highly religious, highly idealized concept of "marriage" as only being between a man and a woman, and that somehow our society will decay if we allow gay couples the right to get married. I believe Bush is going to propose a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage, which the Democrats' nominee would almost certainly oppose, and try to use that as a way of trying to make the election into a cultural debate instead of a political debate. It stinks but its going to happen.
Safire isn't waffling: "As moral-political issues go, this big one deserves examination in communities with minds that can deal with internal contradictions which is the libcon way." This is both a legal issue and a cultural issue, as you note. The culture is not going to change because the law changes.
"The culture is not going to change because the law changes." Well, I don't know about that. Around 1953 one might have said the same thing about racial segregation in the American South. Then the law changed, and the law was enforced. There was much resistance to change within the culture, but cultural change eventually did follow. Without the impetus provided by the changes in laws, I very much doubt that this would have happened.
The two chase each other and at other times they push each other. Sometimes things get really nasty and they pull against each other but I really can't recall a time when law and culture ever ignored each other for any significant amount of time.
Safire doesn't take a stand. He dances around some of the various issues but he doesn't give his view. He says he wants to see local communities discuss the issue and decide what they think. He can neither encourage that nor stop it. They do it all the time. Nice that it gives him some warm fuzzies to see it occurring. I guess.
Nice item, Richard.
Re resp:0: I think Safire is right about most things in that piece, but wrong about the Texas sodomy ruling "opening the door" for agitation for gay marriage. People were agitating for gay marriage long before that ruling. In fact, the ruling seems to have provoked a backlash. Re resp:2: I keep hearing that this is going to be a big issue in the upcoming election, but I don't see why. The Democrats are not going to make a big deal about gay marriage, because they know the majority of the public isn't going to support it. The people who *are* strongly for gay marriage will still vote Democratic because, let's face it, they have no other options. Likewise, Bush already has a lock on the Religious Right's vote, so he doesn't really need to play to them on this issue. At most it'll be a sidenote the Republicans will attempt to use in an exaggerated way as a scare tactic. (<serious announcer voice>The Democrats want to force your church to marry queers! Vote Bush 2004.</voice>) Re resp:6: Still, Safire is a conservative commentator. It's pretty striking, to me, that he doesn't come right out against the whole concept of gay marriage. Cal Thomas, for example, would have approached the subject very differently.
I think Safire made a good point in comparing homosexual marriage to interracial marriage. Both have been outlawed in the past. Legalizing interracial marriage went a long way toward humanizing minorities. I think he's exactly right when he said: [T]he ancient word conveys a powerful message. Civil union connotes toleration of homosexuality, with its attendant recognition of an individual's civil rights; but marriage connotes society's full approval of homosexuality, with previous moral judgment reversed. Legalizing homosexual marriage removes the force of society's angry frown of disapproval from homosexual relationships. People will still be uncomfortable and unhappy about homosexuality. Many, maybe most, people still feel awkward about interracial marriage. So what? Some feel uncomfortable about interfaith marriages. Those have been legal for a century at least, and I don't know anyone who thinks they should not be. People said interracial marriages were proscribed by the Bible, too. I for one still think legalizing them was a good idea. I'm for legalizing homosexual marriages. If they have to be called "civil unions", then so should heterosexual marriages. There shouldn't be any legal distinctions between the two, such as tax advantages. Like Safire, I'd describe myself as somewhere between a libertarian and a conservative. I wouldn't draw the lines quite where he does, so I guess I'm not a "libcon". I can live with that.
I am sure the GOP leadership would like to make homosexual marriage into a campaign issue, much like they tried to do with flag burning a few elections ago. It'll be more likely to be a big issue if Howard Dean is nominated. Homosexual marriage is a big, important, critical issue to a lot of people. If the Democratic Party allows it to become a central campaign issue, then they'll lose the next election, because it's the sort of issue that will get a lot of people out and voting. I hope that doesn't happen.
re: "#10 (jep): . . . Homosexual marriage is a big, important, critical issue to a lot of people." How many?
I also am unclear on what Safire is "proposing". Perhaps he just had a column deadline to meet but hadn't any new (or old) ideas. I'm inclined to think that if "civil unions" of homosexuals were widely permitted, essentially equal to marriage in law, those so united would themselves still say they are "married" (that could not be outlawed), and slowly the distinction would melt.
I'm getting tired of politicians making big deals out of what I see as non-issues. Of course, I also know that they play to whomever is giving them the most money. The Religious WRONG in Bush's case. I also don't understand why people get so worked up about things that are going to have absolutely NO impact on them. Politicians need to focus on politics. My grandmother, a lifetime Repiblican, stopped voting Republician because of making abortion the major issue. One of the founding principles of this country is religious freedom, and the Christian theocracy that the Religious WRONG is pushing for makes me sick. After all, one of the reasons the colonists left England was to escape religious oppression. Again, why worry about things that don't affect you?
re resp:11: I'm not sure what you want. Are you disputing what I said?
re: #8....the reason the GOP and Bush's folks will run hard on the gay marriage issue is that polls consistently show that there is a distinct gender gap on this. Younger voters, who grew up in a more accepting culture, are far more likely to have less of an issue with legalizing gay marriage. But older voters, over age fifty, grew up in a different time and a lot of them see legalizing gay marriage as another instance of the world changing from what they know and the world they grew up in. The Bush people are making a big run at getting larger chunks of the senior citizens vote next year. With a proposed consitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage, they figure they will not only rally their base, but also attract a lot of older voters who might place extra importance on such cultural issues. Also they figure such an amendment will play well in the south, which is the region traditionally most resistant to cultural change (see civil rights era) So if they think they have a hot button issue sure to help them among older voters and in south, what does that add up to? ONe word-- Florida. The state that decided the election last time. Also the Bush folks presumably think they can use this issue to bring out rural white voters-- who polls show strongly oppose gay marriage-- in key states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Think about what happened when Clinton became president and he tried to fulfill a campaign promise to change the rules so openly gay people can serve in the military. There was a huge hue and cry, people-- military veterans, older voters-- saying that you can't force cultural change on the military. The reality is that you COULD have gays in the military now because younger people aren't as homophobic as their parents or grandparents. But the old guard that still runs the military couldn't see that, and they rallied a lot of support among older voters, white male rural voters, conservative southern voters. The result was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a sham of a policy which encourages gay people to stay in the closet and doesn't promote acceptance and understanding. The same sort of factors are in play with legalizing gay marriage. The same people who don't want to know that gay people might be in their troops, are the ones who don't want to know that gay people are getting marriage licenses.
Oh, I agree the Republicans will make an issue of gay marriage. Regardless of what the Democratic position is, they'll be accused of supporting it.
If we ever find ourselves in a position where we have a draft, I have a feeling that homosexuals will be allowed to serve openly in the military. Either that or you'll have a whole lot of young men pretending to be homosexual in order to avoid going to war. If they drafted women and didnt allow lesbians in, I would be french kissing some chick while waiting in line.
can i have polaroids?
(Apparently, homosexuality was NOT used to avoid the draft during the Vietnam War. Of course, homosexuality was not as acceptable then as it is now.)
exactly my point
If you read historical accounts, you wouldn't believe how Harry Truman was attacked when he ordered the military de-segregated. The old guard military leaders screamed that it was against the military culture, that blacks had to be in black troops and whites in white troops. Truman, to his credit, told them basically, "get over it" Truman signed Executive Order #9981 in 1948 and unilaterally de-segregated the army. And you know what? the military DID learn to live with it, and became more tolerant as a result. Sometimes people WON'T accept cultural change unless it is forced upon them. That's just life. There is no question that people would get used to gays in the military and gays getting married, and after a while not even think about it anymore.
Re #20:
If one guy comes in, sings a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walks
out, they'll think he's really sick and they won't take him.
And if two people do it... if two people walk in, sing a bar of
Alice's Restaurant and walk out, they'll think they're both
faggots and they won't take either of 'em.
-- Arlo Guthrie (errors mine)
Leonard Pitts, Jr. did a column about gay marriage recently, too: http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/pitts28_20031128.htm He thinks that the focus on gay marriage is a misdirection ploy by the Republicans, meant to distract people from the war and the budget deficit. He also thinks that Republicans will focus on "gay marriage", not "civil unions", because including the word "marriage" gets more of a visceral reaction from people.
Being gay is illegal under the UCMJ, or has that regulation been changed?
This response has been erased.
I'm not sure if this is a politics or religion question: what does UCMJ stand for?
Uniform Code of Military Justice, maybe?
exactly.
interesting to note that several american military leaders have, erm, "come out" against "don't ask, don't tell" recently. . . . there was an article in the NY Times recently, I believe, but I don't have the URL at hand at the moment. and, of course, some two dozen militaries around the world, including Canada, Israel, and the UK, have lifted bans on homosexuals in their services with no ill effects.
Maybe you didn't read the article about how Canada's military's going to be disbanded.
Re #25: My impression is that admitting you're gay is illegal, and engaging
in homosexual sex acts is illegal, but being gay itself is not.
In my personal opinion, the institution of marriage seems like a wonderful thing, when it works out right. And everyone knows that the divorce rate is going up and we are seeing fewer examples of good marriages now than ever before. So if you have couples who love each other, and who want to be part of this institution, and to be an example to others as to how to have a succesful loving relationship, why not let them? Allowing gay marriages would only IMPROVE the overrall marriage statistics. I know at least two gay couples, who consider themselves married, and have been together for many years, and who are like the best "examples" of marriage and "committed relationships" that I know. They don't need a marriage license or some church ceremony to tell them they are married, but wouldn't it be nice if it wasn't even an issue. Wouldn't it be nice if the government acknowledged that they are consenting adults and have the legal right to share each other's lives?
Some argue that the legitimate function of government is to provide a basic set of circumstances (such as national defense) and serve as the guarantor of basic rights for citizens. Others seem to believe part of the proper role of government is to discourage behaviors they find merely distasteful. View with extreme skepticism anyone who loudly proclaims that they want less government interference in people's lives while fighting tooth and nail to maintain or even expand government involvement in people's intimate private lives. What they usually mean is that they want less government interference in their own lives but will be happy to tell you how you must run yours.
re: "#33 (richard): . . . Allowing gay marriages would only IMPROVE the overrall marriage statistics." Which "overall" statistics? And, your proof for that is . . . ? (Not that we actually expect to receive a direct response.)
Yeah, I don't buy that either. I don't see any reason to believe that gay people wouldn't mess marriage up just as often as straight people. Of course, this isn't even close to being a reason not to legalize gay marriage.
Re: #33 : You want gay marriage legalised just so you can gerrymander hte statistics on lasting marriages. Re: #34: Yes, exactly.
Based on the following article, Mr. flem may be correct. http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/5_May/053003_mn_gay_definition_of_ marriage_is_not_the_equal_of_heterosexual_marriage.shtml May 30, 2003 Gay Definition of Marriage is Not the Equal of Heterosexual Marriage Facts Show Sexual Fidelity Not a Part of Gay Unions - By W. Moran . . . "There is, in fact, a large body of evidence which shows that gay relationships are not the equal of what heterosexual marriage is. . . "The first revelation we could examine is commitment. The 1984 book "The Gay Couple" was written by a psychiatrist and psychologist (who happened to be a homosexual couple). . . After much searching, they were able to locate only 156 couples in lasting relation- ships. . . (O)nly 7 couples had actually maintained sexual fidelity and none of the seven had been together more than 5 years. " . . . (H)ow about the health aspect of all this? Here's something from the upscale gay magazine Genre, which surveyed 1037 readers . . . "One of the single largest groups in the gay community still experiencing an increase of HIV are supposedly monogamous couples." . . . 42% have had sex with more than 100 different partners and 16% claim between 40 to 100 partners.(2) . . . "According to Dr. (Martin) Dannecker . . . (o)f the homosexual men in steady relationships . . . "the average number of homosexual contacts per person was 115 in the past year." In contrast, single gay men had only 45 sexual contacts. (4) "According to gay icons Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen . . . "The cheating ratio of 'married' [committed] gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%." (5) ". . . For whatever reasons, and it can be backed up by research and anecdotal evidence, few gays form unions that are exclusive to their partner. . . ." (Wally Moran is a life-long journalist and publisher from Ontario.)
I am not even sure exactly what you just tried to put into my mouth, but it sure wasn't what I said.
Not all homosexuals are men. On my block there were three divorces, all heterosexual, one heterosexual couple still married, and one female couple with a kid who had been together a long time and bought a house.
I think it's amusing that conservatives want to deny gays the right to formally commit to a monogamous relationship, and then they turn around and complain gays aren't monogamous enough. It'd be interesting to see statistics on how monogamous unmarried straight people are.
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu:8080/GSS/rnd1998/reports/t- reports/topic18.htm Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency, and Risk Tom W. Smith NORC University of Chicago November, 1989 Revised February, 1989 Revised January, 1991 GSS Topical Report No. 18 Paper presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, February, 1990, New Orleans Publication Notes: A revised version of this paper was published in Family Planning Perspectives, 23 (May/June, 1991), 102-107. This research was done for the General Social Survey Project directed by James A. Davis and Tom W. Smith. The project is funded by the National Science Foundation, Grant No. SES-87- 18467. . . .Despite much chatter about open marriages and "swinging" and the contention by pop and pseudo-scientific studies about the normalcy of infidelity (Smith, 1988; Smith, 1989a), Americans actually seem to live up to the norm of fidelity fairly well (Greeley, Michael, and Smith, 1990). Over a given year 1.5% of married people have a sex partners other than their spouse (Table 3). . . .
If a man and a woman need a marriage license, what do lesbians need? A liquor license.
re 38: >"According to Dr. (Martin) Dannecker . . . (o)f the homosexual men in >steady relationships . . . "the average number of homosexual contacts >per person was 115 in the past year." In contrast, single gay men had >only 45 sexual contacts. I'll bet that heteros in steady relationships get a lot more "sexual contacts" than hetero singles, too. That's one of the fringe benefits of goin' steady--it's easier to persuade your partner to jump in the sack than the blonde at the end of the bar. At any rate, Wally Moran might not be the best spokesman regarding what is moral and what is not: http://www.goldhawk.com/gfb/20010401.shtml
I think Sindi makes a good point. If "conservatives" want to focus on gay men and monogamy, as if this would discredit the idea of gay marriage (which might encourage monogamy), then we should also discredit heterosexual marriage based on comparisons to lesbian relationships. Of course, the whole issue of monogamy is a red herring. It's none of our business what (or with whom) a married couple chooses to do in their bedroom. That the article in #0 is written by by Nixon's press secretary says a lot. And Republican strategists might want to take note. I also recently read an article on this topic by George Will. It wasn't as "liberal", but it also was not as "homophobic" as Will used to be. Will elderly voters care more about gay marriage or the rising cost of prescriptions and health care? About social security? And will younger voters be turned off by a Republican convention reminiscent of 1992? Much has changed over the last decade or two, and things will continue to change. Get used to it.
Re resp:42: That's a statistic for *married* heterosexuals. I asked about unmarried heterosexuals. You can't compare statistics for married heterosexuals to homosexuals because the latter aren't allowed to marry. If all the Republican rhetoric about the social benefits of marriage is right, we ought to see married people being far more monogamous than people who aren't married.
Mr. johnnie - We believe that "contact" refers to the number of different individuals, not to the number of sexual encounter. Mr. gull - You ought to be asking about hetereosexuals who are married or in "committed relationships." Please refer to my response to Mr. johnnie, above. Your heterosexual friends who are in committed relationships have encounters with 115 other people each year?
Maybe instead we should be asking why anyone would care who sleeps with whom, or what their relative marital statuses are at the time?
Sorry, klg, but the idea that gays in committed relationships are significantly more promiscuous than their "single" brethren makes no sense whatsoever, unless one has a deeply pathological view of homosexuals. The stat (at least as you're reading it) cannot be true.
Re resp:48: I think whether it's government's job to police that is, in fact, a good question.
(I do wonder where these people are who, according to klg, are apparently having sex with 115 other people each year. I certainly don't know any of them, and I know a fair number of people who are bisexual or homosexual. If they're really finding 115 different partners every year, that's an awful lot of people involved.)
This response has been erased.
Wow. How come I never get spam advertising videos of *that*?
So what figures have you to present, Mr. gull? re: "#49 (johnnie): Sorry, klg, but the idea that gays in committed relationships are significantly more promiscuous than their "single" brethren makes no sense whatsoever" What, then, would it mean to be in a "committed relationship" if not exclusivity?? (Call us old-fashioned.)
Okay, taking a closer look at resp:38.
First off, MassNews appears to be a right-wing news site. This is about
as credible as me quoting Michael Moore to support an argument. The
fact that this was an "exclusive to MassNews" instead of a story from a
mainstream source should be a big warning sign right from the start.
Your second quote does not give the sample size or how the sample was
gathered. That makes the numbers meaningless. Obviously the writer
wants to imply that there were only 156 gay couples in lasting
relationships in the entire known universe, but in reality we don't
know. No percentage is given, either. Is that 312 people (156 * 2) out
of 500? 1000? 10,000? The information is suspiciously lacking, probably
because it doesn't support the writer's argument.
The third quote from the article that you cite, from the gay magazine
Genre, also does not give any information about how the sample was
taken. If it was a sample of their readership, that's unlikely to be
representative; your sexual orientation has to be a pretty big part of
your lifestyle before you start subscribing to magazines about it.
Also, the article does not support your suggestion that the "115
contacts" were with different people. It says "the average number of
homosexual contacts per person." While the article writer clearly wants
us to assume that this implies 115 different people, nothing in the
quote supports that conclusion. It's hardly shocking that someone in a
committed relationship would have more sex than someone who is single --
especially given the note later in the article that the average Canadian
has sex ("sexual contacts", if you will) 102 times per year. That
suggests that homosexuals in committed relationships are having 12% more
sex than average, hardly shocking.
#34 is exactly right. I think klg is not a conservative, because he is overly concerned with legislating other people's lives and telling other people what they can and cannot do. That makes klg more like a communist than a true conservative. klg doesn't want people to lead their own lives, because only klg KNOWS what is right for their personal lives. Gays and lesbians who are in love and have made a life commitment to someone else, shouldn't be allowed to get married-- in klg's view-- because klg knows better how to lead their lives than they do. Sheesh.
Figures != truth. HMG (Her Majesty's Government) currently estimates that *upto* five thousand people a year die from "superbugs" contracted whilst in hospital which are resistant to antibiotics. Independent research suggest the number may be closer to *at least* twenty thousand. Since HMG also claims that the *total* number of people who are infected with superbugs is 100,000 a year, unless the independent statistics have higher figures on the total number of infections (i.e. those who are infected and die, and those who are infected but recover), that's eithe one hell of a discrepancy, or one hell of a large proportion of the total *and* a large discrepancy. (The discrepancy arises because the methods of recrding death certificates are not sufficiently rigorous to record every case of death which was *not* the direct result of infection with a superbug, but where such infection was a contributing factor. Thus HMG's figurtes are in fact extrapolited from US Govt. statistics, adjusting for demographicsd and population size.)
("Figures don't lie, but liars figure.")
Yes, Mr. gull. The (gay) people who conducted the studies actually want to make homosexuals look bad. Makes sense to us! Mr. richard, Watch your blood pressure (and please either use a dictionary or cease using terms that, quite obviously, you do not understand)! We have no desire for governmental control of how homosexcuals wish to conduct their personal lives. But, quite obviously, since marriage is commonly known as a relationship between two people of different sexes, then people of the same sex cannot marry each other. We have no desire to change a definition for a social institution that has been effective and useful for thousands of years. (Which, we would think, is the definition of conservative.) regards, klg
I strongly suspect that the "surveys" referenced were as scientific as web polls. Vote early, vote often, and tell us whatever fancy you wish. Brag and exaggerate to your heart's content. And never mind that the survey was conducted in a porn magazine that is self-selective and not representative of the gay population.... All of which misses the point. We don't deny marriage to heterosexuals because some of them lack fidelity. Why should we deny marriage to homosexuals for that reason?!
Because they're fags.
Marriage would not be the first word to change its meaning. Family used to be the people who lived in your house and worked for you.
Quite obviously, since marriage is commonly known as a relationship between two people of different sexes, then people of the same sex cannot marry each other It was equally obvious, once upon a time, that women shouldn't have the right to vote. That black people shouldn't be allowed to use the same water fountains as white people, or serve in the same military units as them.
Of course, since you don't fall off or lose your balance, the world must be flat, too.
re: 62. Ahhh. So you understand what we are getting at. and Mr. jmsaul tries to take us off on tangents.
No, I'm pointing out that "it's always been this way, so it's obvious we shouldn't do it any other way" is a dumb argument.
My favorite take on this argument comes from a very old Doonesbury cartoon: Clyde (a black male): I heard you're gay. Andy (a gay male): I heard you're black. Clyde: Yeah, but that's normal. Andy: Didn't used to be.
Okay we shouldn't do it that way because marriage is a religious ceremony, a sacrament, and homosexuality is a sin. as such, they are not entitled to teh sacraments of CHRISTIAN marriage. If they can find a religion that sanctions gay relationships, then they should join that religion. civil relationshios are another matter. If they wish to establish a civil union, then they should be so allowed. But then you also have to offer said civil union to other lifestyle choices. Say cousins, uncles and nieces, mother adn son, father and daughter, cats adn dogs, as nauseum.
It's been possible to get a completely civil marriage from mayors, ship's captains, etc., for many many years now. Marriages with all the same legal rights, responsibilities, privileges, and the same license as a church marriage.
Note I didn't say Civil Marriage, rather civil union.
So if marriage is a religious ceremony, do you think there should be such a thing as Civil Marriage? Would you prefer to see the current form civil marriage generalized into this concept of civil union or would you want to see two separate forms of civil ceremony maintained, one for marriage and one for unions?
The term "civil marriage" already [um] divorces the term from "religous marriage" and any divine connotation that may have to some people. Or would you also argue for "Muslim Unions", too? If god[s] consider 2 people to be married is between them and their god[s]. What the state considers is an entirely different issue, one which involves the separation of church and state.
marriage still denotes a man and a woman and does not violate any religious laws even if it is non-religious in function. Why do the gay members of this society feel the need to have a union between them be a "marriage"? Is it not because they want to weaken the bonds, or expand the borders of what is exceptable to the majority of our citizens?
Webster: Marriage: 3. an intimate or close union.
This response has been erased.
Like "The marriage of two minds" That is a good point keesan. By using the word "marriage", I don't think the religios angle should be implied. After all, a lot of atheists get married. Just because they don't believe in God doesn't mean that their marriages are not recognised.
Exactly - a marriage is performed by a myriad of people - clergy, politicians, judges, sea captains, various m-netters . . .only the clergy make it a "religious" union. Other than that, it's all legality.
This response has been erased.
Re resp:56: You're confused. Trying to control other people's private lives doesn't make you communist, it makes you authoritarian. Communism is more of an economic philosophy, but when governments implement it they tend to result to authoritarianism to maintain control. Hence the confusion between the two. Re resp:59: The problem is the studies are being quoted out of context. The writer of the article is cherry-picking passages that support his position, then saying "but see, it's from something by a gay group" to lend more legitimacy. Re resp:68: Marriage, as practiced in the U.S., is both a civil and a religious ceremony. I'm all for seperating the two, as suggested in resp:71; perhaps everyone (regardless of sexual orientation) should get a civil union that carries the secular benefits currently associated with marriage, and then if they want to have their church "marry them in the eyes of God" they can go ahead and do so. I expect to see this happen in the U.S. about the time pigs fly, however; we seem to be heading towards *more* ties between church and government lately, not less. Re resp:73: Actually, I don't know anyone who favors it because they want to "weaken the bonds" of marriage. Actually, most people I know who favor gay marriage favor it because they *want* the strong bond that marriage represents. Tell someone you have "a partner", and the suggestion is that you could seperate at any time. Tell someone you're "married", and there's a whole different and entirely more favorable set of assumptions. Let me repeat the point again, more clearly: I know of NO group or individual who is proposing gay marriage because they deliberately want to weaken marriage as an institution. That's not to say there aren't ulterior motives. Some people see it as a stepping stone to greater acceptance of their lifestyle by society. But destroying the institution of marriage is *not* one of the motives here. If you're worried about marriage losing its strength and reputation as an institution, you might want to start talking to FOX about shows like "Married by America" and "Joe Millionaire". I know they generally get a pass from the right for supporting FOX News, but I think that the FOX network has done more to weaken marriage than any other institution in the last couple of years. Re resp:77: Actually, sea captains cannot legally perform marriages in the U.S.
Neither can m-netters, for that matter :)
As I understand things, gays ar looking to marriage for the ancillaries: next-of-kin, inheritance, joint tax returns. In the European novels involving a wedding that I've read, two marriage ceremonies, one civil and one religious, are common. NB: polyandry and polygyny have both been practiced, with success. Marriage is not necessarily _a_ man and _a_ woman.
A lot of Indian marriages are conducted with two ceremonies - the religious and the civil. The civil one is really just the signing of the marriage certificate, but it's separate from the religious one.
Re resp:81: Some just want the civil features of marriage, yes. Those are the people who fully support civil union laws. But there are some people who also want the symbolism of marriage, and they aren't so keen on the "seperate but equal" arrangement a civil union would represent. Personally, I'd be happy to see either one succeed. I think a civil union arrangement is more likely, because a lot of people have a visceral negative reaction to the word "marriage" being attached to anything but a traditional male/femaile relationship.
re # 74: Ooops... It appears Ms. keesan made a boo-boo - like leaving out the most relevant part of the definition, which follows. (We suppose we would have no moral objections to a painting marrying a poem, if that makes you feel any better.) Marriage 1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry> (Was it the Chesire cat who stated that words mean only what he says they mean? Clearly, that was illogical to Mr. Carroll - and it is illogical today.) re: "#79 (gull): Re resp:56: You're confused.. . ." Which is not unsual for Mr. richard. "Actually, I don't know anyone who favors it because they want to "weaken the bonds" of marriage." Perhaps you do not. But, then again, there is the law of unintended consequences. re: "#81 of 82 by Joe (gelinas) on Mon Dec 8 12:06:52 2003: As I understand things, gays ar looking to marriage for the ancillaries: next-of-kin, inheritance, joint tax returns." All of which can be arranged in the absence of marriage. "polyandry and polygyny have both been practiced, with success." Really?!?!?!?!
Bruce, the whole point behind the separation of church and state is that it doesn't matter if what you do violates religious laws provided you don't violate civil law. The latter rules for everyone, the former only for those who wish them (to some extent or another). Thus, eating pork violates religious rules -- no less than a gay marriage does. (And yet some people who don't eat pork will eat shrimp, which is no less an offense.) Religion does not own a trade-mark on the word "marriage", and as gull said extending marriage is neither intended to nor does it weaken it. You don't believe that "infidel" Muslim "marriage" weakens the meaning of Christian marriage -- do you? You may also want to look into a book by Boswell about gay marriages performed in the early years of the Church.
Did I say anything against any other religion? Does any other religion endorse gay marriage? Or do other religions hold gay relationships as an abomination?
There are a number of smaller Christian churches that have elected to perform gay marriages and an even larger number that wouldn't perform such a ceremony (yet?) but would stop well short of considering it "an abomination."
If you want to consider marriage to be a purely religious arrangement on which a particular religion can impose whatever conditions it likes, that's fine with me -- but only if being married has no legal implications whatsoever for anyone. Because of the *legal* priveleges accorded to married couples, the Supreme Court of MA has quite correctly declared that it is unconstitutional to deny marriage to gays. You can't have it both ways. Either the legal priveleges go along with marriage as a package deal and anyone can get married, or marriage can be restricted but it has no legal consequences. I think we require religiously married couples to have a separate civil union ceremony before they receive any legal benefits.
This response has been erased.
Re resp:84: Hmm...so if we're supposed to take your definition as the
final word, that means anyone who cannot have children shouldn't be
allowed to marry, right? ("...for the purpose of founding
and maintaining a family")
re86: do some research, stink-o.
Just because there are three definitions in Webster does not mean that you have to fit ALL of them. You get a choice. Isn't it the marriage of true minds not two minds?
What seems to be happening here is a case of "you have to do what I believe is right, because if you believe differently than me you are WRONG and will GO TO HELL." I got way too much of this attitude when I went to school in Malaysia, and please excuse my language, but I showed them that I wasn't swallowing any of the shit they tried to feed me.
Bruce, there are a number of Christian denominations that would be happy to marry gay couples if gay marriage were legal under the civil laws.
In addition, Reform Judaism and some Conservative Rabbis will perform gay marriage ceremonies. Again, due to the law, they can only issue religous, but not legal, certificates. I'm also not sure you understood my example regarding "infidel Muslim marriage". If the term "marriage" can be applied to "infidels" without weakening the institution, why would applying it to a loving Christian couple (who happened to be gay) weaken it? Furthermore, if either of these can be said to weaken the institution, then it must be pretty weak on its own merits. I don't believe it is. Do you?
re: "#92 (keesan): Just because there are three definitions in Webster does not mean that you have to fit ALL of them..." Certainly not. You just need to fit the RELEVANT ONES. Mr. flem, Anyone CAN get married. (Well, perhaps it may be limited to non- institutionalized, competent humans of age who are not related by blood or currently married.) Except, one cannot marry somebody of the same sex.
#86 is a PERFECT example of why one should NEVER trust a conservative: they expect you to do what they want, because if you don't, you're gonna be subject to hellfire and damnation in their eyes, whether or not this is actually going to happen when you die. But, of course, it is ok for them to do whatever the hell they want, because the end justifies the means. Once again, conservatism shows it's Ultimate Power: The power to disgust and horrify anyone with a brain.
If certain religions are willing to marry homosexuals, is a violation of constitutional freedom of religion protection to deny those people the usual legal rights associated with marriage? Or is religion not really a part of the secular, civil definition of marriage? And if religion is not part of the secular, civil definition of marriage, why are we limiting it only one man and one woman?
Depends on your POV. In the uk, divorcees getting married in church is not allowed. So civil marriage is the way to go; OTOH, many people choose to marry in registry offices anyway.
re #96: Come on, klg. You used to be better at the straw man bit. You've been slipping recently. Pull yourself together, man. What I don't understand is that, even though you religious conservative types know perfectly well that gay couples are going to burn in hell for all eternity, you feel the need to persecute them further in this world. Can't you leave the moral judgements to God? Don't you think he's up to it?
I think the idea is that if they make homosexuals' lives miserable enough, they'll convert to heterosexuality, thus saving their souls.
I think you're being a lot more generous to them than I would.
well, I suppose that is one way to look at it. The other way is that "IF" it is a sin, it is the duty of the Christian "not" to accept them into society without pointing it out to them.
I tried Christianity in my childhood. While I came to disagree with the teachings, I was never taught to hate by my Church.
at least not *directly*.
In Ireland, you can be divorced from a non-Catholic and then marry a Catholic in a Catholic church because the church thinks you were never married to the non-Catholic in the first place. Never mind that you had a legal marriage and a child during the first marriage. And they overlook the child with the second spouse-to-be which preceeded that marriage.
Sindi, I believe you are mixing up church and civil rules for divorce
in Ireland. The rules for divorce are certainly stricter but do not,
as far as I know, make any formal recognition or distinction of
the religion of the individuals divorcing. I'm not even certain they
could, legally, under EC regulation.
Here is a URL which may shed more light on the "in's and out's" of
this:
http://www.oasis.gov.ie/relationships/separation_divorce/
I am referring to church rules. The civil divorce took part in the USA.
Re #103: Feel free to point it out, but stop legislating against it.
klg, in an earlier response, stated: "We have no desire to change a definition for a social institution that has been effective and useful for thousands of years." so are you saying that if something has been in place for thousands of years, that you do not think it should be changed? That this is the "definition" or a "definition" of conservatism. In other words, klg is admitting that he would have been against women's liberation and the civil rights movement, and every other time that we have attempted to have social change for the better. klg thinks NO social change is for the better then-- he'd rather blacks were still slaves, and women were still property of men, and neither were allowed to vote or be educated. Because it had "been in place" klg is saying don't change society, don't try to make it better, stay in the past. well I know of conservatives who would argue with klg's definition of "conservatism" William Safire for one, whose column opened this item. Conservatism ISN'T about rejecting change, anymore than liberalism is about changing when its not necessary. What you see happening is natural. We evolved as a species, so why shouldn't our culture evolve as well. Why shouldn't our culture evolve and change and grow and adapt when it seems right to do so? Just because something has been in place for thousands of years DOESN'T mean it shouldn't be changed if in fact it is RIGHT to change. If we don't have the courage to change even our oldest institutions, then we lack the courage of our convictions. The insitution of marriage can be better, it can be stronger, it can be something more people what to be a part of. But right now, the divorce rate is escalating and many younger people don't even see the point in marrying. That tells you change is necessary. That tells you that marriage, even if as an institution it has been in place for thousands of years, is not indestructible. If we do not legalize gay marriage, just as if we had not legalized inter racial marriage (which used to be illegal in many states), marriage itself as an instutution would be under attack. It would continue to lose relevance to younger generations, and become outdated. If klg CARES about the institution of marriage, he should want it to grow and adapt with the times.
Richard, because you are a liberal (the opposite of conservative), doesn't it follow from your definition of conservative that you must be in favor of *every* change, regardless of who it will benefit or who it will harm, or in what way, or with what intentions? Klg didn't say anything like what you said. Your definition of "conservative" couldn't possibly be a real philosophy of anyone's. Everyone wants change. Every single person. Those various types of people whom you collectively and indiscriminately define as "conservative" certainly want changes. According to your definition, no one could possibly fail to oppose "conservativism". It's a fantasy definition, only useful to a very limited sort of person. Some real people are conservative, and some of those are honest, passionate and thoughtful. Conservatives don't fit your view in any way. Do you really need your straw men to blow away so easily? I imagine you to be over the age of 12. It might be time to inject a little realism into your political views. Just a little.
Good luck.
What slynne said in #98. It's true, klg specifically restricted his argument to the "definition for a social institution that has been effective and useful for thousands of years". But klg is still in error. For starters, it was Rabbi Gershom who outlawed polygamy amongst Jews. Only a mere thousand years ago (not thousands), indicating that this institution can and has changed even in some of the most conservative corners. More widely and to the point, the institution of marriage has changed dramatically in the last hundred and some years. Few here enter into arranged marriages. In fact, most people marry for love. Scandalous!! Even more recently, as Richard correctly points out, we've come to accept inter-faith and inter-racial marriages. Those who value marriage shouldn't be asking if the institution has been "effective and useful for thousands of years" but if it will continue to be so. I ask (again): how does the marriage of homosexuals weaken the institution? Does the marriage of atheists, "infidel Muslims" or pagans not likewise offend your God and weaken the institution?
What possible difference does a sex organ have on whether a relationship is good, and loving, and committed? Lots of heterosexual people don't want to create children but they can marry. Lots of happily married people don't have sex where tab A goes into slot B, yet we aren't telling them they aren't really "married". Orifices don't define a marriage. It's the relationship.
Re: #10: Yeah, I agree. I often hear conservatives who say "If it asin't broke don't fix it," bellowed in opposition to everything from gay marriage to legalization of homosexuality to membership of the EU. What they don't seem to realize is, just because they don't think it's broken doesn't mean liberals/socialists/libertarians/centrists do.
re: ". . . #113 (lk): For starters, it was Rabbi Gershom who outlawed polygamy amongst Jews. Only a mere thousand years ago (not thousands), . . . ." Well, you got me there - technically. But, you full well know that in Judaism technical and practical often are at two ends of the spectrum. (For example, what is a father, according to Torah, supposed to be able to do to discipline a rebellious son?? Can you cite a single instance in which that punishment has been carried out or allowec???) But, specifically to the subject at hand: "Polygamy was permitted in the Bible. However, already in Biblical times, it was viewed with some suspicion and subjected to both ethical and legal restrictions. In particular, the Torah stipulated (Exodus 21:10) that when a man took a second wife, he could not reduce the first wife's rightful portion of food, clothing, or conjugal relations. The early rabbinic period, also, treated polygamy as allowed, but discouraged. I can't recall any Talmudic rabbi that had more than one wife (at a time)." http://www.kolel.org So, as you well know, Jews have, in practical terms, been monogamists for thousands of years. Furthermore, you are well aware that we are not talking about the "institution of marriage," but of the definition of marriage. While the former may have changed, the vast majority of people are not interested in changing the latter, i.e., one man and one woman. re: "#114 (mary): What possible difference does a sex organ have on whether a relationship is good, and loving, and committed? . . . ." What possible difference does species make if the relationship is good, loving and committed?
Nice straw man, but so far I'm not aware of any species that can intelligently commit to a relationship, other than human beings.
(If, it some point in the future, we encounter intelligent alien life, then we may have to consider the question of inter-species marriage. I don't expect it to come up any time soon, however.)
"(For example, what is a father, according to Torah, supposed to be able to do to discipline a rebellious son?? Can you cite a single instance in which that punishment has been carried out or allowec???) " I'm curious - what is a father allowed to do?
re #111..JEP, you misread my last response, I said: Conservatism ISN'T about rejecting change, anymore than liberalism is about changing when its not necessary. So I agree with you. In fact your diatribe should have been directed at klg, it is KLG who sees conservatism as accepting given definitions and refusing to change. And who made this definition that marriage means between a man and a woman? as leeron points out, polygamy used to be accepted in biblical times. This is a different world now than it was a thousand or two thousand years ago, or even a hundred years ago. We can't grow and develop as a society unless we have the willingness to broaden and expand our philosophies and views to reflect how the world has broadened and expanded. Surely you can see that JEP. And no being liberal doesn't mean thinking that ANY change that is a change is good either. We each have to decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, and those judgements have to be made every day, and we should make those judgements based on how the world is today, now how the world was two thousand years ago.
(I don't exactly remember. But it sure isn't sparing the rod. The point is, though, the what is "permitted" is not practiced.)
And JEP you are hypocritical if you defend conservatives as honest, passionate and thoughtful, and don't see liberals as being such too. But you did, you belittled me for being a liberal when in fact I specifically noted William Safire, whose column I posted, is a conservative who disagrees with klg. I think that a "realistic" political philosophy is one that accepts a world where change is constant and people are continually growing and developing. So I really don't know where you are coming from. And Other, what was that "good luck" comment you posted for? klg is the one who still wants to live in biblical times
(Speak for yourself, Mr. richard.)
Re 121 (I know the point that was being made. I'm still curious as to what Jewish fathers are allowed to do to their rebellious sons)
Eat them.
I stepped into something I shouldn't have; the klg-richard debate, which doesn't really matter to me. Sorry. I'm out of that one again.
It's always tempting to get involved, isn't it? ;)
Klg, I'll concede the point that what is permitted is not always what is practiced -- since that isn't a point I made. In the specific case of polygamy amongst Jews, you might recall that Yemenite Jews didn't receive R. Gershom's letter and continued to practice polygamy into the 20th century (a custom not foreign to the Muslim world in which they lived, though I'm not sure how widespread this practice was amongst the Jews -- but it did happen.). So at least amongst Yemenite Jews this did change in the last 100 years, which builds up to the rest of what I said which you ignored: More widely and to the point, the institution of marriage has changed dramatically in the last hundred and some years. Few here enter into arranged marriages. In fact, most people marry for love. Scandalous!! Even more recently, as Richard correctly points out, we've come to accept inter-faith and inter-racial marriages. Let me clarify that these are changes of definitions. Your new definition just happens to be a superset of the old definitions. Christians defined marriage as a wedding between a Christian man and a Christian woman. Likewise marriage was commonly defined (as practiced!) as being between a man and a woman of the same "race". In turn, my definition is a superset of yours. (Shall we call this the evolution of an idea and institution?) The point is that both practices and definitions have changed over the past 100-150 years. Those who value marriage shouldn't be asking if the institution has been "effective and useful for thousands of years" but if it will continue to be so. I ask (again): how does the marriage of homosexuals weaken the institution? Does the marriage of atheists, "infidel Muslims" or pagans not likewise offend your God and weaken the institution?
You might want to try indenting, or otherwise marking, the bit's your quoting, as in the post above it's qite difficult to discern which parts are written by you, and which are quoted.
for mynxcat: When a man has a son who is stubborn and a rebel one who does not listen to the voice of his father or to the voice of his mother and they discipline him and he still does not listen to them. Then his father and his mother are to grab him and drag him to the town elders in the gates of his place And they are to say to the town elders, "Our son is stubborn and a rebel he does not listen to our voice he is a glutton and a drunkard!" Then all the men of the town are to pelt him with stones so that he dies. So shall you burn the evil out of your midst's and all Israel will hear and be awed. . . . These are later rabbis' interpretations of my verse from the Torah: When a man has a wayward and rebellious son who does not obey his father or mother, they shall have him flogged. If he still does not listen to them, then his father and mother must grasp him and bring him to the elders of the city and say "Our son is a wayward and rebellious child, he does not listen to us and he is an exceptional glutton and drunkard" In order to be stoned, the boy must be between the ages of 13 and 13 and one quarter. The law does not apply to girls. The boy will be flogged with 39 lashes only if he eats the meal of the rebellious son which is forbidden. Both the mother and father must agree to bring him to the local Supreme Court of 23 judges. By tradition, the rebellious son must steal money from his father, and buy 50 dinars of meat, and eat it rare outside of his father's property in bad company. This is the act which must be witnessed by two additional people besides his parents in order for the son to be put to death. He must also drink a half a log (5 ounces) of wine with the meal. It is forbidden for a boy of this age to eat such a meal at any time. If the punishment is carried out, the boy will be hung up by his hands just before sunset for the town to see and immediately taken down again after sunset. These laws have been put in by rabbis in earlier centuries and changed and made into an interpretation of what the words mean so that there will never be a child killed.
Interesting. Thanks klg
Why 13 and 13 and 3/4?
That would be: "13 and 13 and 1/4" Why? We would guess: 13 = the Jewish religious age of majority for males. Have no idea why the "1/4." Perhaps based on some other source in order to generate the shortest possible period consistent with the subject under discussion. Feel free to search for the answer yourself, if you care. BTW - The whole of 130 was lifted from a website.
Oh, you mean you can *start* between 13 and 13 and 1/4? The way i read it was you can only stone boys between 13 and 13 and 1/4.
If they did their best to ensure the shortest possible time in which a child could be killed, and worded it so that no child was killed, why bother having that law in teh first place?
"In order to be stoned, the boy must be between the ages of 13 and 13 and one quarter." Why??? The explanation would most likely depend upon one's interpretation of the origins and meanings of the Torah. Our's would be that it contains a moral/ethical message that goes beyond its literal reading. Similar to "an eye for an eye," which "means" to us the penalty for taking an eye is monetary compensation for the value of the loss of an eye - not putting out the perpetrator's eye.
That's a good point.
What a pagan practice....
You in favor of blinding the guy?
and remember, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" are maximums, not minimums. You can never do more than that to the violater. You can do less.
Actually, the saying has nothing to do with body parts (or, necessarily) money. It's just saying that the penalty needs to be comensurate with the crime. It's an idiom to the tune of "apples to apples" vs. "apples to oranges". The latter which describes the drift we've just experienced. (: Re#129: Jeff, I was not quoting anyone else in #128 (if you referred to me). I was quoting what I said previously and clarifying it with more commentary as per what klg had said in response.
Still, what you were quoting would have been clearer indented...
OK, here it again, indented as requested: (Though, as I was quoting myself, I changed a word or two for clarity.) In the specific case of polygamy amongst Jews, you might recall that Yemenite Jews didn't receive R. Gershom's letter and continued to practice polygamy into the 20th century (a custom not foreign to the Muslim world in which they lived, though I'm not sure how widespread this practice was amongst the Jews -- but it did happen.). So at least amongst Yemenite Jews this did change in the last 100 years, which builds up to the rest of what I said which you ignored: > More widely and to the point, the institution of marriage has changed > dramatically in the last hundred and some years. Few here enter into > arranged marriages. In fact, most people marry for love. Scandalous!! > Even more recently, as Richard correctly points out, we've come to > accept inter-faith and inter-racial marriages. Let me clarify that these are changes of definitions. Your new definition just happens to be a superset of the old definitions. Christians defined marriage as a wedding between a Christian man and a Christian woman. Likewise marriage was commonly defined (as practiced!) as being between a man and a woman of the same "race". In turn, my definition is a superset of yours. (Shall we call this the evolution of an idea and institution?) The point is that both practices and definitions have changed over the past 100-150 years. > Those who value marriage shouldn't be asking if the institution has been > "effective and useful for thousands of years" but if it will continue to > be so. > I ask (again): how does the marriage of homosexuals weaken the institution? > Does the marriage of atheists, "infidel Muslims" or pagans not likewise > offend your God and weaken the institution?
Thanks.
Muslims worship the same God jews and Christians do. It just that they have teh "particulars" wrong. The same God the Mormons do, but they have the "particulars" wrong. Forget religion. For most of human history, people have practiced a one man, one woman relationship. A Nuclear family, if you will. That doesn't mean people have not strayed. That doesn't mean some nations haven't allowed multiple marriages. That doesn't discount the harems. That doesn't discount prostitution. But the majority of human societies have practiced one on one relationships. Nature built us that way, that is why we get jealous, thats why men commit some murders. Because an uncontrolable age seeks to remove those who cheat on them. (women do this as well) It is a lot deeper in us than religion creates. It is rather something that religion tries to control, to regulate, to codify. So people who are to dumb to see the reality in society have a place where they can be instructed in how the society expects them to behave. God, or nature (if you prefer) made us want to be monogomous.
No-way, man, it's the lack of mushrooms in the diet.
Re #140:
The idea that these are maximums makes sense, but do you have a specific
reference for this?
For most of human history there have been a one man, one woman relationship? What?? I mean, for the longest time, humans didn't even realize that sex is what led to children, and sex was just an urge to fulfill.
Re resp:145: Even a casual reading of the Bible suggests that "one man, one woman" has been the exception, rather than the rule, for much of human history. Maybe you should be specific about what parts of human history you're counting, and what parts you're editing out. A lot of conservatives seem to feel that the 1950's were the American utopia. They take the norms of that time -- nuclear families, the man going out and earning money, the woman staying home and raising quiet, respecful kids, etc. -- and try to filter the rest of history to make it seem like things were always and should always be that way.
During periods of warfare there is a man shortage, which is why people are adaptable to various forms of family structure, otherwise the population would decrease among any group that could not adapt. Was there anything resembling formal marriage in hunter-gatherer societies, or is it more like the situation now, where people couple for a while and then drift apart?
edina, when do you think humanity learned sex led to babies? Had to be at the point they started domestication of animals. Right? 100,000 years ago?
uhhh... I'm not sure how much I believe this, but it has been said that certain islanders of the South Pacific had NOT put it together by the time European ethnographers visited them in the nineteenth or ealy twentieth century.
i think polygamy is just fine for some women, but they should be able to treat all of their husbands EQUALLY. re151: prove it, officer stink-o.
Drew, re #147 regarding #140: Please see #141. Bruce, re #145: > Muslims worship the same God jews and Christians do. It just that they have > teh "particulars" wrong. Perhaps, but the devil is in the details. Many Christians still believe that Muslims and Jews are going to Hell. I think Muslims return the favor. Can these hell-bound infidel marriages truly be on par with that of the True believers? When these infidels marry, getting the particulars wrong, doesn't that offend God? Doesn't that weaken real marriage? Why is getting some particulars wrong better or worse than getting other particulars wrong? > But the majority of human societies have believed that the Earth was flat. > Nature built us that way Nature (or God) made some people gay. Also other mamals. (Whether through genetics or environmental factors or a combination is not relevant here.) So why shouldn't gays be allowed to have the same one on one relationships that you claim the majority of human societies have? Flat out, that's discrimination!!
and down the slippery slope we go... We discriminate against immoral and illegal activities all the time. Thats why theft, murder, prostitution, drug use, rape, adn child molestation are all illegal. WE discriminate against them. Lets just make them all legal.
Sure, we discriminate against immoral folks all the time, but not everyone agrees that homosexuality is immoral, while darn near everybody view things like rape and murder as immoral.
NPR has been running a series over the last week or two on the history of Brown v Board of Education. It's quite interesting how much the arguments against school desegregation parallel the arguments against gay marriage. There was the "the bible sez it's wrong" argument, the "we've always done it this way, and if it was good for the cavemen it's good for us" argument, the "end of society as we know it" argument, even the "this is a bad thing to bring up during an election year" argument. The only anti-desegregation argument I hadn't heard applied to gay marriage was the "I'm not a bigot--we do it this way because it's *better* for blacks." Hadn't heard that one until yesterday, that is. Some (Republican) legislator on the news was denying that he had anything against homosexuals or gay marriage--he was just afraid that allowing gay marriage would create a backlash against gays from his less-enlightened fellow citizens, so he wanted to hold off for the good of the homosexual community. Right....
Drinking coffee must be immoral. The Muslims drink it anyway. They think wine is immoral, but they are at least willing to tolerate other religions. Instead of demolishing Hagia Sofia they whitewashed over the frescoes. I have never known any gays who were unwilling to tolerate heterosexuals or deny them any rights.
In fact, the Muslim Turks introduced the Europeans to coffee. As I said, infidels!! I don't think we outlaw theft, rape and murder because they are "immoral". I think we consider them immoral and outlaw them because these HARM another. Being gay and gay marriage harms no one. What compelling state interest is at state for The People? So far the only one presented is that gay marriage will "weaken" the nstitution of marriage. Really? Isn't it time someone explained how and why this would happen or withdraw what appears to be the only non-religious argument against gay marriage? Bruce, as you yourself argued, "one on one relationships" go back a long way. Why not recognize these same relationships amongst gays and lesbians?
I was about to say wehat lk just said: "immorality" lies in doing harm to others and, to some extent, to oneself (harming yourself in many ways does harm to others). I also see no ways in which homosexuality or gay marriage harms anyone so long as it is mutually desired without intended fraud. Also, neither harms anything that anyone else likes to do, such as heterosexual marriage.
This response has been erased.
Re #154:
Actually I was hoping for a chapter and verse to look up for this specific
fact.
re resp:159: It bugs me to see you stating that anyone who disagrees with you must not have any basis for their opinion at all. The other side does the same thing, you know. I don't agree with anti-gay marriage people, but I understand them to some extent. There are plenty of reasons why they feel that gay marriage would weaken heterosexual marriage. I'll explain some of it. Please understand that I don't agree with a lot of it. Government's interest in marriage and need to control it is partly due to concerns for children. Who takes care of the kids? This is important, but pretty much only for heterosexual marriages. There are employment benefits for married people. These benefits are getting quickly weaker, even now. If you don't think it would hurt married couples to have a lot of what are currently known as "domestic partnerships" declared "marriages", you just simply aren't paying attention to what the insurance companies are doing now. It is very important to a lot of people to oppose homosexuality in any way possible. Some people have religious reasons, some are just disinclined to accept things that are new to them or which they were told in childhood were wrong. During my time in the National Guard in the Upper Peninsula, I observed a great intolerance for ethnic minorities, but it was literally *nothing* compared to the intolerance for homosexuality. There was *hatred* for homosexuality among very much mainstream people in that area. The UP is not that much different from other rural areas. The issue is an emotional one for a lot of people there and in a lot of America.
There will be many fewer homosexual couples than heterosexual couples - the whole issue of additonal benefit costs - at most a percent or two - is a red herring. I do know there is opposition to homosexuality among the great busy-body masses. It is certainly a problem, but not something to value and make an effort to preserve. As has been pointed out, it is just like intolerance of any minority and we have partially surmounted a lot of that.
Jep, re#163, I appreciate our comments, but:
I didn't say that anyone who disagrees with me "must not have any basis for
their opinion at all". What I said is that no one had presented such a
basis -- which is why you posted what you did, despite not fully agreeing
with it. And the 3 reasons you conjure aren't very compelling:
> children
Many gay relationships involve children. Moreso amongst women than men, but
this could change were gay marriage an option.
> employment benefits
As a small business owner, trust me when I say I know what "insurance
companies are doing now". [Ouch!] Yet this argument fails on two levels.
First, isn't this argument saying that we should discriminate against someone
because it would cost too much not to do so? Wasn't this argument used to
argue for slavery? Second, according to a study conducted by Lotus before
they began offering benefits to gay domestic partners, the costs were
relatively insignificant -- especially compared to the talent one might
lose by not offering such benefits.
Now here is where I think you are on to something:
> It is very important to a lot of people to oppose homosexuality in any
> way possible. Some people have religious reasons, some are just
> disinclined to accept things that are new....
> There was *hatred* for homosexuality....
Exacty. The driving reason is often "homophobia", either for religous reasons
or due to personal discomfort. The excuses ("weakens marriage", "costs too
much", "children") are rationalizations attempting to justify the irrational.
They fail.
As Rane said, this intolerance & hate is not unlike those of other minorities
which predate it and which are in the process of being surmounted.
Marriage does not equal children. Couples who are too old to have children marry. Infertile people marry. Couples who don't ever want to have kids marry. So what? The financial issue exists, but based on what I saw when it came up at UM, it's really used as a proxy by people who simply hate gays, or at least hate homosexuality itself. And hatred should NEVER be used as a basis for public policy.
So Muslims and Jews have the "particulars" wrong? I suppose you mean th practitioners of neither religion follow their holy book to the letter, or the spirit, depending on which you think is more important? Oh, wait...! I am sure you mean that because their world view does not agree with yours, they therefore are manifestly and demonstrably wrong. You are SO lucky I am not 1. Unstable; 2. Convinced of my own righteousness; 3. In favour of gun ownership; 4. In America. However, I *am* both disgusted and amazed that you could disgust me any further than you already had.
Re resp:163: > Government's interest in marriage and need to control it is partly > due to concerns for children. Who takes care of the kids? This > is important, but pretty much only for heterosexual marriages. But we don't limit heterosexual marriage to people who are fertile. > There are employment benefits for married people. These benefits > are getting quickly weaker, even now. If you don't think it > would hurt married couples to have a lot of what are currently > known as "domestic partnerships" declared "marriages", you just > simply aren't paying attention to what the insurance companies > are doing now. So basically, you're justifying discrimination as a way to artificially limit the demand for insurance? Besides, I'm not convinced the impact would be that great -- I suspect the majority of homosexual partnerships are two-income households, and the number of partnerships nationwide is pretty small compared to the overall population.
My two neighbors who just bought a house together have a child with two mothers. More homosexual couples might have children if they were given the legal rights to be coparents of children born to them or adopted together.
What happened at UM when they proposed benefits for same-sex domestic partners is that two of the most conservative Regents (the university's elected governing body) opposed it on economic grounds, saying it would cost the university tons of money and threaten the employee benefit system. It passed anyway, and something like 50 couples (out of some 30,000 employees) have actually made use of it. Basically, that argument is spurious, and it's usually used by people like those two Regents who demonstrably hate gays as a cover for their real reasons to oppose gay rights. One of the two went on to oppose the existence of an office here to provide counseling for gay students, on the grounds that it would be used to brainwash students into homsexuality. No bias there.
169 slipped. And she's right. But marriage is NOT linked to rugrats, and should NOT be.
One thing on which I do agree with the anti-gay crowd on is the word "homophobia". I don't think there's any way to promote understanding and tolerance by the use of such labels. I find it offensive and I am not really one of the ones being targeted by it.
re resp:168: I am not justifying anything. I'm not anti-gay. re resp:166, 170: Joe, I had not heard any such statistics, and find them very interesting. Have any more information like that about other places which give benefits to those who are not in a heterosexual marriage? Also: Are you sure that information isn't propaganda? (There is certainly a lot of spinning of facts around these days.)
My position on gay marriage issues: I don't think the government should prohibit them. I agree it's discrimination. I don't see much difference between the former issue of inter-racial marriage (long since settled) and gay marriage. I'm not going to become a gay rights activist, or support them other than by staying out of their way. There are bigger issues in my life. The biggest part of this one will get resolved in a few years, no matter what I think. That's good enough for me.
twenex, did you just threaten my life? I think you did. Why? You will notice I ddiin't say who was right. Or what they were right about, or wrong about, or even if every christian was right. Get a grip on reality.
Re #173: I don't think the number's propaganda, but according to one source
I found (a Michigan Daily article quoting someone from UM's benefits
office), the number I was remembering is a bit low. They're saying
61 men and 69 women have registered partners, so the total is (or
was in 2000) 130. That's still a tiny number compared to the total
number of employees, which I'm guessing at around 30K (probably
low).
Re #175: As a matter of law, he did *not* threaten your life. Statements
of the form "if I weren't X, I'd kick your ass" are not classically
considered threats (assault) because the speaker is making it clear
that he's not going to carry out the action, since the condition
that would prevent it is present. Have a nice day. :-)
Re #159: The Turks did not introduce Europeans to coffee; the Turks abandoned sacks of coffee after their second (failed) siege of Vienna, and a monk showed everyone how it could be made into a tasty drink. The monk happened to be a Capuchin, thus cappucino. Re #171: I disagree with your last sentence, violently. Children need stability almost as much as they need food and shelter. People who cannot sustain a stable, committed relationship should not have, or be allowed to adopt, children.
Russ, you're misinterpreting it -- though I don't think marriage is a prerequisite to a stable, committed relationship. What I meant is that marriage is not just for having children, and should not be looked at as such.
I didn't threaten your life. I've got far better things to do than dealing that way with people like you. Like educating them. Or watching tv. Or pissing on flies. Presumably if marriage is simply a means to the end of producing children, one should invalidate all marriages which do not produce kids. I'm Henry VIII I am, I am, I'm Henry VIII I am....
Bru: You said that Jews and Muslims believe in the same God as Christians, but that Jews' and Muslims' interpretation is wrong. That only leaves Christians to be right. Reasons why gay marriage should be legalized: 1. We are moving towards equality of gays with heterosexuals. In order for that process to be complete, ALL rights, including marriage, must therefore be accorded gay couples if we are to claim that they truly have equal rights in law. Equal rights in law a a necessary and vital step in promoting equality in society, since it leave those who would deny rights based on the law without a leg to stand on. 2. Christianity and Islam demand respect for infidels and sinners, as they believe they can be redeemed. (Does Judaism preach the same thing? I was always under the impression that Judaism dpes not attempt to bring Gentiles into the fold, however tolerant individuals or communities of Jews may be.) Therefore, and especially since it is up to God to decide who goes down below, a true Christian or Muslim will not condeemn a man or woman to ostracism simply because of their homosexuality, any more than because of their pagan religion. 3. The point of state secularism is to promote religious toleration; therefore the question of gay marriage being legalized by the civil courts should be divorced (for want of a better word) from the question of its legality according to church law. 4. Church law is not immutable; the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was developed by the early Church after the death of Jesus, whilst the doctrine of Papal infallibility dates from the 11th century, or a little earlier. 5. There is no question in mymind that the Bible was not meant to be taken literaqlly, but was meant as ae "handbook" for better human relationships and a metaphorical means to understand the world. Thus the liberal (to use hte word w/o its political connotations) interpretation of "an eye for an eye" as an exhortation to let the punishment fit the crime, not to pluck out the eye of someone who blinded someone else. Therefore among thinking Christians, there should be no objection to discussing the best way of dealing with homosexuality. 6. Discrimination against gays is an obstacle to their achieving their full potential, and therefore as a libertarian I cannot help being implacably opposed. (Most of you will have noticed that when I oppose something, I oppose it implacably anyhow.) 7. Even if you do not accept #1, equality before the law3 of all citizens is one of the basic tenets of a liberal democracy; therefore, by accepting #7, you must accept #1. If you do not accept #1, or by extension #7, you hold a viewpoint that is anti-American. (Those who forget what relevance this has to an Englishman should remember that provincial legislators and delegates to the Continental Congress at first demanded the law be administered according to "the rights of Englishmen", changing this to "natural rights"; theefore their struggle for liberation was basedon a desire to restore those rights they believe they had under English law; natural, since the Colonies were founded by the English, and even then, a large proportion of Americans wee born in England.
well, look at it this way. If Jews, Moslems, adn Christians all worship the same God, They all say they want peace, adn tehy all keep fighting each other, SOMBODY has got it wrong! Therefore among thinking Christians, there should be no objection to discussing the best way of dealing with homosexuality. twenex, I suppose the problem is that most christians do "not" want to deal with homosexuality. They don't want anythign to do with it. they don't want to talk about it, they do not want to hear about it. They do not want to know what goes on between homosexuals in the beadroom, they don't want to think about it. Most christians also view marriage as a sacrament. it is something the church puts a blessing on. IT IS A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY. As such, they cannot tolerate it being debased by ordering them to bless what they view as a sin. I know, I know, no one is ordering them to bless anything. But that is how they feel it is being pushed. How many of these homosexual couples are going to want to get married in church? How many of them are going to push their respective diocese to accpt them because the law says it is now legal? How long before some church finds itself sued becuse they are discriminating against gays by not letting them get married in the chapel? (don't laugh, we have seen people sue over other things equally as ridiculous) And down that slippery slope in the far, far future, is it possible that the law will say that a church cannot discriminate, and by doing so, will force the church to either change its beliefs, or penalize it? In effect, is that not the state making a law with regards to religion, and a violation of the constitution? My personal preference is that we accept civil unions with all teh rights and privelages of a monogomous couple, but that it bextended beyond sexual relationship. Why should I have to F--k someone to have a civil relationship and extend to them benefits from my medical insurance?
So which is the "one true" religion, then? Which sect, and which version of the holy book?
Re resp:181: > I suppose the problem is that most christians do "not" want to deal > with homosexuality. They don't want anythign to do with it. > they don't want to talk about it, they do not want to hear about it. Funny, they sure spend an awful lot of time talking about it. If they don't want to deal with it, why do they spend so much time trying to control homosexuals' behaviour? > Most christians also view marriage as a sacrament. it is something > the church puts a blessing on. IT IS A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY. But it's also a secular contract. That's part of the problem here. There are really two different concepts, which are being linked artificially. Part of this is historic, and part of it is political. By linking secular marriage and religious marriage, it becomes much more acceptable to try to deny marriage to homosexuals -- you're "defending the purity of religion" instead of just discriminating against people whose choice of mate you don't like. > And down that slippery slope in the far, far future, is it possible > that the law will say that a church cannot discriminate, and by doing > so, will force the church to either change its beliefs, or penalize > it? No, this is why we have seperation of church and state. However, this is a good reason for Christians to think long and hard about whether they want to support things like "faith based initiatives." If you erase part of the boundary between church and state by letting government money start funding religious activities, you may eventually find there are strings attached and that the parts of that boundary that prevent the government from dictating what religious groups can and cannot do are getting hazy as well. Re resp:182: Good question. Not even all Christian denominations agree about this. I'm curious which Christian denominations bru thinks got it right, and which denominations he thinks are going to Hell.
I think I'll just shut up and let gull speak for me.
(This is just way too good to pass up.)
Great Moments in Sex Education by the Massachusetts Supreme Court
An alert (Opinionjournal.com) reader calls our attention to a footnote
No. 23 in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, last month's
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision declaring the traditional
definition of marriage unconstitutional:
It is hardly surprising that civil marriage developed
historically as a means to regulate heterosexual conduct
and to promote child rearing, because until very recently
unassisted heterosexual relations were the only means short
of adoption by which children could come into the world.
Yes, and now we have adoption, legalized gay partnerships, and artificial insemination, we're free to implement gay marriage. Did we wait before putting the new inventions of the wheel and the computer to use?
Mr. tweenex- Go back and read it again. klg
Only thing that has changd after a second reading is this: Pointing out that children do not "come into the world" via adoption, but aare adopted once they've been born.
Is English your second language?
No. Were your parents too poor to buy you the cost-option brain? As it stands, the quote in #186 only refers to the *customary* definition of marriage, without alleging that the Constitution outlaws other definitions of marriage. That which is not specifically prohibited is allowed, n'est-ce pas?
Way back there, bru said this: >and down the slippery slope we go... > >We discriminate against immoral and illegal activities all the time. > >Thats why theft, murder, prostitution, drug use, rape, adn >child molestation are all illegal. WE discriminate against >them. Lets just make them all legal. I really think that this fundamental misunderstanding is at the root of much of the disagreement on this issue. Bru assumes that we outlaw murder and so forth because they are immoral. IMO, this is completely wrong. We outlaw murder and child molestation and such because they violate the human rights of the victim. Protecting human rights is pretty much the fundamental purpose of government. So the question becomes, whose human rights are violated by allowing gay marriages to be recognized by law? I think that's the real question that opponents of gay marriage need to answer before their arguments can be taken seriously.
Re #182: What #183 said: Good question. is there even any hard evidence that there is a Hell for the denominations in error to go to?
That's it exactly
Hmmmm... People here are assuming that gay people never reproduce. But what about the many people who finally conclude that they're really gay, after having had heterosexual relations and often children? Yes, there are a lot of children of homosexuals.
..and there's the wanna-be lesbian who mysteriously keeps getting knocked up.
#193 was in response to #191, although it could justy as easily be in response to #192, which slipped in.
(As I said in #165.) Some homosexual couples reproduce/adopt even after coming out. As for Jewish beliefs (in a nut-shell), there is no hell. There's not much said even about an afterlife. When the Messiah comes, the dead shall rise and we'll all figure it out. There is a concept called Sheol, more akin to Hades, where all the dead go. But it's not very well defined. Judaism is more concerned with this life. Jews do not "recruit" (you know, unlike homosexuals (: ) but do accept converts to the faith. (Moses himself married a non-Jew, as did King David, Solomon and others). Converts are considered full Jews in every sense. In fact, the line of David came from Ruth, a convert.
This response has been erased.
I think whether or not they do is pretty irrelevent to the argument.
well, look at it this way. If Jews, Moslems, adn Christians all worship the same God, They all say they want peace, adn tehy all keep fighting each other, SOMBODY has got it wrong! Yeah -- ALL OF THEM. Why anyone wants to pattern their lives after a set of religious tenets invented by people who can't even get along with each other is beyond me. Looking at the Middle East, I'd think that sane people would reject any way of life that came out of that snakepit on general principles.
Huh. I think Middle Eastern monotheism and the general Judao-Christian moral principles which accompanied it, taken as a whole, surpass by far any other contribution to civilization which came out of that region. Or for that matter, any region. I think it's the basis for modern nationalism instead of tribalism and industry replacing agriculture, for starters among things that I value in life.
Industry has replaced agriculture? I still eat food.
Ahhh...but it is processed food!
Processed food? Not in Sindi's case! Most of us don't make our living by agriculture. I'm not sure if anyone does who currently logs on to Grex. I don't personally know of any professional farmer who has ever logged on here.
There is a professional farmer that sends me e-mail here.....
Re #201: I would just as soon have had it that Judeo-Christian-Islamic mythology had never occurred and that civilization arrived at an ethical and moral course by rational means. That several millenia diversion into fantasies has been a source of enormous human suffering.
Wow, lots of meat here. I agree with jmsaul (#200) on almost every point except the last one. As jep says (#201), the Middle-East provided us with cities, and at a time when their organized religion(s) w(ere) not monotheistic Islam, but polytheistic and usually variant from city to city. Also, during the Dark Ages and Early Mediaeval period when the whole of Western Europe was still persecuting witches and had descended into feudal chaos, Muslims and Jews were making adfvances in medical and the other sciences which seemed like witchcraft to the nearly barbarian Christians; especially in the case of the Muslims, they are also often our only surviving source for Greek scientific texts, which they often studied and improved upon (lest we forget, the Greeks knew that the Earth was round. It's the only possibly explanation for the fact that you see the sails of a ship first when it comes over the horizon.) The Turks, who at one time ruled almost the whole of the Muslim world, and Palestine, allowed Jews to practice freely on payment of a tax. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be taxed for being X than be gassed for it (although, of course, it's not right or fair to do either; it's the lesser of two weevils.). Re: #206: I doubt that the internecine strife between Jews, Muslims and Christians, or persecution by any of these religions against "infidels", can be seen as the only, the first, or the last instances of religious persecution. The recent rioting in Gujarat, an Indian state where the majority religion is Hindu, is one example; further examples could be provided by the Viking raids on Northern Europe, taking no account of the fact that the richest pickings, which they found in churches, were also religious relics, etc. Furthermore, in respect of Islam, opne of its aims was to *prevent* tribal warfare between different groups of Arabs, which, afaik, it succeeded in for a large part of its history - and even now, Arabs still see themselves as part of the same "nation"; many of the states that exist now did not exist before the British Empire carved them out of its Ottoman possessions. If you want other examples of "how the mighty have fallen", just look at Russia after Catherine the Great, moddern Italy, modern China, or modern Britain :-(.
Thankyou for the clarification re: Judaism, lk.
You're welcome, but let me clarify a few other points. (: > The Turks... allowed Jews to practice freely on payment of a tax. Isn't that an oxymoron? It's true that under the rule of Suleiman the Magnificent (who rebuilt Jerusalem) Jews fared well. But this was the exception rather than the rule. In the 19th century, the plight of Jews in the "Holy Land" (no such place as "Palestine" existed yet) was so extreme that they turned to western powers for protection. Look into the Capitulations and the short-lived Tanzimat reforms. The reason one sees the top of sails before the ship is obvious. They are less likely to be hidden behind waves and one usually sees taller objects first anyhow. It has nothing to do with the curvature of the earth. (: [Archimedes triangulated the diameter of the earth and came quite close.] > in respect of Islam, opne of its aims was to *prevent* tribal warfare > between different groups of Arabs, which, afaik, it succeeded.... I don't think this was an aim. Islam was spread by the sword, through tribal warfare. Polytheists who refused forced conversion were put to the sword (Christians and Jews were tolerated). I'm not sure that a "Pax Islamica" was ever achieved, but the schism between Sunni and Shiite Muslims would lead to millions of dead. The concept of "Arab unity" is something like the weather. People always talk about it....
Heh. looks like I stand corrected.
I'll grant that Judeo-Christian monotheism made important contributions to morality, but that it led to nationalism and industrialization? That's a bit of a stretch.
re resp:206: That's wishful thinking on the order of "I wish people didn't have to get sick", Rane. People didn't spring into being with full knowledge of how the world works; they had to figure it out. (And some of you still haven't got it all right. (-: ) Some day people may come to regard quantum physics and relativity in the same way most of us regard phlogiston, astrology and the sun going around the Earth on the backs of turtles. That doesn't mean any of those things were "fantasy". Serious, intelligent people have believed in all of them, because all of them have pretty well fit available facts at some point or another.
re resp:211 (who slipped in): It's fodder for another item, but if you look at the basic innovation which occurred in Dark Ages and Middle Ages monasteries, where the monks were constantly striving to free up time to exercise their devotions, the connection is there. The striving for improvement, and exploration, that originated in Western Europe was not an accident. The dominant influence in Europe from 4th through 18th centuries was the Roman Catholic church. I'm not claiming it *wanted* the change that it catalyzed, but it'd be pretty blind to deny it didn't have a lot of influence. The Catholic religion was *wildly* successful in a whole *lot* of ways.
Re #212: just to keep the subtleties straight...I did not say I *wished* anything - just that I would have preferred it. I am aware of the original ignorance of modern humans when they finally evolved and that they had to figure out everything in a very complex and confusing world. History could, of course, have taken other directions, but it is not surprising that it is full of misdirections. I blame a lot of that upon people discovering that they could control others by inventing fantasies - even coming to believing them themselves. I disagree, however, that we will ever "come to regard quantum physics and relativity in the same way most of us regard phlogiston, astrology and the sun going around the Earth". It has been known from the start that those scientific concepts were simply workable hypotheses of limited accuracy. They were presented in that spirit and challenged to be countered or, rather, improved, even if that meant to be replaced. It was mostly adherence to dogma, not to observation, that kept phlogiston et al alive as long as the did (and have). What will happen in the future is that the "whys and hows" of quantum physics and relativity will be discovered. That, however, will not make even the current manipulations of those concepts less valid within their limits of accuracy.
<remmers wonders what "available facts" supported the concept of the sun going around the earth on the backs of turtles.>
This response has been erased.
re #213: Well, I guess I'll cheerfully argue with you in another item, then, if you start it. For here I'll confine myself to saying that I disagree, mostly. :)
Re: #2133. Don't forget that we had to come a LONG way in order to get to Mediaeval Europe in the first place, and the journey started (as far as my hemisphere is concerned) in China and the Middle-East. I often wonder how much wisdom we'd have discovered if my ancestors and ours hadn't destroyed the civilizations of the Americas, or even if they'd simply written more of it down for us. Or if writing had been invented separatrely in Europe, for that matter - how on *earth* did the Mayans build their palaces without using wheeled vehicles; how on *earth* did the prehistoric people of Britain build Stonehenge with stone from over a 100 miles away in Wales, again without wheels? (And what the hell was it for?!) Seems to me they would have needed *incredibly* complex and organised societies. Btw, Roman and Greek Chroniclers from Tacitius to Caesar report that Celtic and Germanic societiews *were* highly complex, and that, possessing no written language, their memory capacity (or rather their harnessing of the capacity we all have) was phenomenal.
Re #216: you seem to be confused. I made no such claims as you attribute to me. Would you care to explain what you are trying to say?
Regarding monks 'freeing up time' - I have seen a drawing of a monastery plan where there was one area of squares marked: sheep, pigs, cows, goats, horses, servants.
I admit this is drifting, but jep -- the monotheistic religions didn't invent nationalism as opposed to tribalism (China had it, as did Rome, the Greek city-states, the Aztecs, and many other societies). As for industry, there's no reason to believe it wouldn't have evolved in a polytheistic society. A number of polytheistic cultures attained great achievements in science and engineering: Egypt, the Maya, China, Greece, Rome, etc. Some of those societies are the ones that contributed the knowledge the monasteries preserved during the Dark Ages.
India is still polytheistic.
Re resp:213: I don't know. In some ways didn't the Catholic Church do everything it could to *halt* progress? I mean, look how they treated Galileo. (Granted, they eventually apologized...over 300 years later. This is the kind of pace of progress the Church can deal with. ;> )
A recent study came out and showed that democrats are 2 -1 more likely not to attend church, and republicans are 2 -1 more likely to attend a church. Perhaps this means that most dems are godless and thus care little for the opinions of those who are God fearing?
Or maybe it means the Republicans are religious zealots and thus care little for the opinions of those who don't want other people's religious rules forced on them? (Hint: Both are overly-broad generalizations.)
You read my mind again, gull.
Maybe us Democrats don't need to prove our "God Feariigness" by attending church once/twice/three times a week.
re224: what church do you attend, fatty?
re resp:220: Are you disputing that some of the monasteries produced innovations in labor saving devices? re resp:221: Maybe other cultures could have produced the Industrial Revolution. I don't know. (A characteristic I share with every other person here.) Western Europe, dominated for a dozen centuries by the Catholic Church, *did* produce it. I agree, this is all drift. I apologize; the gay marriage debate wasn't done.
China was a lot more technologically advanced than Europe during the period that Europe was dominated by the Catholic Church. Europe made more technological progress after the church lost its stranglehold on knowledge. It was not known for things like encouraging a belief in a round earth. Or for questioning any accepted opinions.
Re #222: Absolutely. As is Japan, mostly.
re resp:230: The people who grew up in Catholic Europe, and their children and grandchildren, advanced a huge amount, inventing the scientific method (which made use of the strenuous rules of logic developed for the priests); advancing math far beyond what the Arabs had given them; and applying all of the things they were learning to technology. The Church may not have invented the printing press, but the people it trained certainly made great use of it. Likewise with the water wheel and horse-drawn plows. The monasteries invented many kinds of clocks, seeking the most accurate way to know when to do different prayers. The mechanisms of some of them -- and probably the tools used to make them as well -- were used for other developments. Then there's sea travel, which was practiced for millenia, but no ships from China, America, Japan or southern Africa came to Europe. Why was that? It was because they didn't know how, and because their cultures didn't encourage them to explore that much so they didn't develop the urge to travel that far. Medieval Europe didn't invent the sailing ship, but Spain, Portugal and England sure did the most with it. All I'm doing is suggesting there's a reason for all of this, and that it's not plausible to say it all happened in Europe, while Europe was dominated by the Catholic Church, but happened *despite* the Church.
jep, you should spend some time reading about the Hellenistic period.
I read an interesting book recently about how the Chinese, in 1421-1423, built a huge fleet of ships and sailed over the entire world, planting colonies in the Americas, discovering Antarctica, etc. They decided after that not to explore any more because there was a disastrous fire which led them to believe that the gods did not want them to do so. The Chinese ships were much more advanced than those of the Spanish or Portuguese, who got hold of some copies of copies of the Chinese maps before they set sail to the west. It was even claimed that C. Columbus used a faked map to show that he could reach China by sailing west, and that he really knew there was other land in the way. The faked map was made by pasting together sheets of one based on a Chinese map and altering a few of them. The Chinese sailors did not get scurvy because they sprouted beans along the way.
The China theory you're talking about isn't necessarily true, but it's
certainly intriguing.
Re #232: This thread started with me saying that there was no good reason
to pick up religious beliefs from the most fractious and un-
peaceable region of the world. Your response was that industry
and nationalism came about because people followed those particular
religions. I (and others) rebutted that by pointing out that many
polytheistic cultures overcame tribalism, and that technological
developments weren't the exclusive province of the Biblical
religions.
If you want to rebut that argument, you can't do it by showing that
Christians also made technological developments; we aren't denying
that they did. We're just saying that Judeo-Christian-Moslem
belief wasn't a necessary prerequisite. Good luck rebutting that
one given the historical record. Sure, they invented stuff -- but
so have polytheists, so monotheism clearly wasn't a requirement.
Europe also gathered science and technology from other corners of the world with other religions (under which, of course, those inventions were invented). These include the abacus, gunpowder, buttons, paper money, paper itself, the compass, much of metallurgy, the astrolabe.....this list is enormous. It must also include all the inventions created in pre-Christian Europe and Asia and Africa. That Europeans took advantage of these inventions speaks to their own enterprise, but certainly Europe was not the "cradle" of invention until the industrial revolution.
The Indians (principally Panini - the name is not Italian and is pronounced "pang-I-ni"; the first n should have a dot over it) made the greatest advances in linguistics known until the 19th century; the leaps made since then were sparked off by an Englishman's investigation of sanskrit through those Indian texts. Many Indians are polytheists. Oops, bang goes another theory.
('Tis is also interesting/relevant that Panini spoke/read/wrote but one
language.)
I would venture to say that it seems to us that all useful inventions came from Europe because the history we learn is mostly European. Some things were, in fact, genuinely invented there; others were filtered through Europe and improved there. Europeans do seem to have had more drive to do adventurous things with technology, but I'm not convinced the church had anything to do with that. I think it had more to do with wars and the need of many European countries to expand their sphere of influence outwards to get precious resources from elsewhere.
Europe is also probably the nicest place to live in the world, from an agricultural standpiont; not too hot, not too cold, no monsoon, tornados, relatively few earthquakes and volcanos, plenty of fertile land, not too many forests, not much ice or snow. Interestingly, Britain was one of the last places the Romans colonized and one of the first they left. It was also one of the first to go over the sea (it would have been impossible to, say, invade France by that time), and one of the last to retreat from its imperialist ways. [I hope any Irish people on GREX will not take offence if I point out that the Romans never bothered with Ireland.)
re resp:235: In resp:201 I stated that I think Middle Eastern based Judao-Christian moral principles are the basis for modern nationalism and the conversion of our lifestyles from being based on agriculture to being based on industry. What I see by way of counter-argument is speculation that maybe another culture would have gotten there too. I have no problem with that, except that it has nothing to do with the point I made and which is presumably being refuted. It is a fact that Western European culture has become dominant over the last 500 years. Maybe it got to this state despite Christianity, and not because of it. Maybe Buddhism or Hinduism or Samurai culture or something else would have gotten there eventually instead. My only argument to that is that none of them did. Shouldn't that count for *something*? Even if it is stylish on Grex to hate Christianity? I was responding to resp:200 which questions why anyone would want to adopt Judaism or it's offshoots, Christianity and Islam, given that there's a political mess in the Middle East. I'd say (I did say) the political mess isn't the most important thing ever to result from the Middle East.
Re resp:241: I just think "Western European culture is majority Christian, and Western European culture has dominated, therefore Christianity is responsible for the dominance of Western European culture" is pretty dodgy, logically. You could just as easily use that line of reasoning to argue that Western European culture advanced more quickly because it's majority white, for example.
You're right as far as you go in #241.
Lets be a bit more specific. Charles Dickens is responsible for the advancement of western european culture as we know it today.
Re #241: the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian-Muslim, including monothesism, are derivatives of Zoroastrianism, so shouldn't we say that our western culture arose from that? You just can't cut off the roots and claim what's left to be the "origin". (The "Mazda" name for lights that came from the Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazda is a modern secular consequence.)
Christianity promoted warfare (Crusades, conquering the Americas and enslaving the inhabitants). That led to increased wealth. The Romans were also big on war and technology. Europe used to be all forested, including the Mediterranean.
The Mediterranean was forested? Well, yes, when it wasn't full of water....
re resp:242: You could indeed state that there was/is something special about white European Caucasians, but then I'd think you'd have to identify that characteristic. Their general skin color is another trait specific to Western Europeans, along with the Roman Catholic Church. I loosely identified the Judao-Christian philosophy of self- improvement, and their work ethic, as things that contributed to Western European dominance. It seems more likely to me than skin color, somehow. re resp:245: I have no problem with that description, though I'd say that almost all of the people who have been so dominant over the last 500 years were specifically Christian or Muslim. Almost none of them ever even heard of Zoroaster.
but the *influence* is there anyway...sort of how most americans prolly have no idea of who pastor ashcroft is even though he's busy as a little fundamentalist bee taking away their rights.
It seems to me that there is a lot of significance in the fact that technological progress in western europe was mostly stagnant before, and increased rapidly after, the protestant revolution. To pick a couple of the specific inventions in resp:232 that jep uses as evidence of the Catholic technological prowess: The printing press was invented and popularized by protestant men who wanted to print and distribute copies of non-latin translations of the bible, in direct defiance of the Catholic church. And, most of the technological progress with respect to clocks was made by people, mostly dutch protestants, who needed it for navigation on long sea voyages.
Re #248: it doesn't matter whether anyone has heard of Zoroaster or not. You have probably never heard of some of your ancestors too. What is important is what they contributed. Judeo-Christian-Islam is based in Zoroastrianism, but they took it from there and built their own edificies upon it.
Is not. Jews didn't much encounter Zoroastrianism until the Babylonian captivity, at least 600 years after Judaism was established. You aren't thinking of Mesopotamian myths (Gilgamesh) which are recounted in the Old Testament, are you? Or perhaps the monotheistic Pharaoh (Akhnaten)? Flem, I'd guess that the same forces that drove the scientific renaissance also drove the Protestant reformation. As such they'd be cousins rather than the reformation itself directly leading to scientific breakthroughs. Nonetheless I think this whole discussion is misguided. Europe was much more heavily influenced by the polytheistic Greeks than by many other things -- for better and worse. Recall that the Church was often pushing Aristotle's teachings, and great as he may have been on some fronts, he was nonetheless a victim of his time in scientific fields. John, I'm not sure there is a difference in saying that someone's skin color (or less superficially, their genetics) has less to do with this than someone's religion. What is it about the religion that propelled this? Did it teach to question or explore? Does it demand submission or did it tolerate a diversity of thought? Note: I'm not saying that genetics had anything to do with it, either. Just that a blanket statement that religion may have somehow contributed is not very convincing -- especially when the religion in question was often intolerant of questioning, exploration and diversity of thought.
quit accusing Christians of causing warfare. Sure they did, but they were not the only ones. The jews. islam, jainists, budhists and just about any religion you can name have started and fought wars.
which war did the jains start, which war did *the* "budhists" start?
Re #241: What I'm saying (as opposed to what you may be hearing, which is
often different in a BBS conversation) is that polytheistic
societies DID overcome tribalism and practice nationalism, without
the help of Judeo-Christianity-Islam. Repeatedly. Hell, look
at Rome.
As for industrialization -- yes, that did originate in Christian
countries. The causal link is not a given, though, since there
were other factors that led to its originating in Northern Europe.
(Read _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ for more on this.)
re resp:252: Did you see resp:248, Leeron? Religions come with philosophies; ways of looking at the world; standards by which to live one's life. None of these things are genetic. They're learned. It's certainly different to say that you were born into an environment which encouraged innovation and personal self- and exterior improvement, than to say you were born with those genetic tendencies because of your skin color. The Roman Catholic Church may have been, as you say, often intolerant of questioning, exploring and diversity of thought, but it certainly encouraged (among some people) very tight reasoning according to strict rules. People spent their lifetimes developing arguments for such questions as, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" They were hot issues for centuries. The logical rules turned out to be practically useful as the basis for mathematical and scientific arguments. re resp:250: I have no problem with anything that you said. The navigational clocks part didn't come along until the 18th century, though. The monks invented mechanical clocks and then later, spring clocks in the 13th and 14th centuries to more accurately determine the hour of the day. re resp:255: Joe, you can say I overstated the "nationalism" bit. I still think my main point stands; that the Middle Eastern religions were indispensable to the development of Western European culture; through it, to the Industrial Revolution; and that they should not be dismissively disparaged. Maybe another type of philosophy would have gotten there anyway. No one knows that. What we know is, it didn't happen that way.
Re #232: I strongly suggest that you read "Guns, Germs and Steel". It is bound to make you reconsider your ideas of why the Iroquois, or the Incas, or the Polynesians didn't take over Europe rather than the reverse.
The Chinese had clocks. Eastern Europeans have the same skin color as western ones. So do northern Chinese. Northern Europe was supposedly settled from western Asia. The Catholic Church may have been superficially monotheistic but it had three gods and a lot of saints (local gods).
John, I saw #248 but in some sense I think "skin color" does have more influence on a person than a religion. Who is more culturally similar? A black and a white southern baptist or a white southern baptist and a white Church of Christnik? As an Israeli, I often look at Americans as terribly materialistic (and wasteful). Is this my Jewish upbringing? Doubtful. Just look at the NY and West Bloomfield "JAPs". Concentrate on the "A" in that. (Just because I can pass as the "All American boy"....) Are French, Polish and Italian Catholics more similar than a German Catholic and a German protestant? I doubt it. So what I'm saying is that I agree with you that there are REGIONAL influences that shape our lives, but religion is just one component of that. Nationality, skin color and other family/tribal customs and traditions also have such influences. The weight of these factors is not constant and there's going to be a varying deviance, too. I just think you're putting too much weight into the religious component, which (I think) you are presenting as the major component if not the only component.
"western Asia. The Catholic Church may have been superficially monotheistic but it had three gods and a lot of saints (local gods)." keesan, where did you learn religion? This is not the christianity I learned. If you don't understand the trinity, don't try and explain it.
This response has been erased.
re: the book "Guns, Germs and Steel": It's been recommended twice now, and maybe I would find it interesting, but I doubt if anyone here reads whole books to pick up a point someone else is making about a drift thread in a discussion item. I certainly don't. If I were to read the book (which I may), I would then doubtless have many questions and points to make with the author, some of which you might address, but likely not most. Meanwhile, why not *make a point yourself*? I am utterly unimpressed by someone saying, in essence, "I'm not going to bother to say anything, but I'll point you at some book, it's really good, and has something to say; just assume whatever you find impressive is my point and therefore that I'm really smart". Now, if you want to invite the author here to debate his points, then you'd have done something useful to contribute to the discussion. Joe, at least, was supplementing his points with the book reference. Imagine a discussion where we debate points by citing authors and books? "I read _A Treatise on Medieval Church Influences_, what do you say to that?" "Oh, yeah, well, _Arabic Technology Comic Books_ answered that one; read issues #111-115." What wonderful reading (and fun) that would be. As if any of us has enough attention span to follow an item that covers more than a day, let alone months.
Ironically, that is almost exactly the mode of argumentation most widely respected by scholars during the period of Catholic dominance. > Flem, I'd guess that the same forces that > drove the scientific renaissance also drove > the Protestant reformation. As such they'd be > cousins rather than the reformation itself > directly leading to scientific breakthroughs. Plausible... but in either case, the Catholic church remains an active obstacle to progress, not a facilitator thereof.
Flem, what were you talking about in your first paragraph? It couldn't have been a response to resp:262, but I don't know what else it could have related to.
re #264: it *was* a response to #262. Flem was presumably referring
to scholasticism, which Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines as:
Main Entry: scholasticism
Pronunciation: sk&-'las-t&-"si-z&m
Function: noun
Date: circa 1782
1 : a philosophical movement dominant in western Christian
civilization from the 9th until the 17th century and combining
religious dogma with the mystical and intuitional tradition of
patristic philosophy especially of Saint Augustine and later
with Aristotelianism
For centuries, under the intellectual domination of the Church,
the scholars of western Europe mostly conducted their debates by
appeals to the philosophical works of Augustine, Aristotle, Aquinas,
(and possibly other philosophers whose names begin with the letter A, :-)
endlessly interpreting and re-interpreting the writings of accepted
authorities instead of directing their efforts towards their own
original thoughts or testing whether the authorities' claims were
verifiable.
I'm assuming flem saw similarities to that in the argument-by-appeal-
to-authority method you disdain in the last paragraph of #262.
If he didn't I certainly did..
Re: 253; since Communist countries are officially atheist, atheists started wars, too (Afghanistan (the Soviet occupation) being a case in point.)
Re #239: Jared Diamond opines that one of the prerequisites for success of a society is how well it evaluates, improves and incorporates worthwhile new ideas and inventions - regardless of where they come from. Islamic societies are strongly xenophobic and do a poor job of even understanding others. (The ancient Islamic scholars are rightly praised for helping to preserve ancient Greek writings in medicine and philosophy, but what most people don't realize is that the works of great Greek playwrights were lost because those same scholars did not see such art as useful enough to copy, let alone translate.) The failure of Islamic societies today is a direct consequence of their "not-invented-here" syndrome combined with a broad society-wide fundamentalism worse than the Amish.
Some Islamic societies do it better than others -- look at Indonesia, for
example, or Malaysia. And while the fundamentalist ones reject outside
ideas, the comparison to the Amish is flawed because they don't reject
outside technology.
Re #262: There are strong arguments that geography and natural resources
gave Europeans an advantage in developing technology and spreading
their culture. For example, they had access to a wider range of
food crops, and had better disease immunity because of the
availability of a range of livestock. _Guns, Germs, and Steel_
develops this theory at length, and does it better than I can
summarize here. As you noted, I'm only using it to supplement
my point -- but I'm also mentioning it because I think it's a
great book, and you would enjoy it a lot.
This response has been erased.
didn't islam come late to indonesia and malaysia? That may be part of the reason that it ahsn't had the same impacrt as in the middle east.
Many of the foods that I eat came from the Americas - corn, the common bean (which largely replaced the blackeyed pea and fava bean even in Europe), squash, tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, chocolate, quinoa, amaranth. The 'better disease immunity' might refer to the fact that when people immigrated to N. American via the Bering land bridge they no longer needed immunity to many disease they left behind, or that many new ones developed later in Europe and Asia due to the more crowded conditions which allowed them to become endemic.
Diamond's thesis is the latter, Sindi: Crowding, in close proximity to animals, allowed diseases to jump species. Exposure to the diseases caused the development of immunities. However, immunity does not mean elimination. So people could bring the germs with them without actually being sick. Example: smallpox, which would seem to be related to cowpox (since vaccinating with the latter provides immunity to the former).
To return to the original topic for a second, the AFA is conducting a poll regarding gay marriage. I happen to think that the value of these non-scientific internet vote-early-and-often polls is null, but since other people may think they're important (and AFA plans to inform Congress of their results), let them know what you think: http://www.afa.net/petitions/marriagepoll.asp As for book references as debate, there was the Star Trek episode where they spoke in metaphors by relating stories. So bantering book titles back and forth wouldn't be so odd....
Do you think the AFA will really share their results with Congress if the results show that a lot of people favor legalization of homosexual marriage?
It's by all means clear how one would actually use a language based entirely on metaphor. How did they tell the stories that led to the metaphors in the first place, is one question.
Apparently, the AFA is also tampering with poll results.
Of course, i meant in #275 that it's by *no* means clear.
Re #275: I had the same problem with that episode. Such a metaphoric language seemed extremely limited in ability to communicate. There are endless situations for which a metaphor would not be available, for example, to discuss metaphors. Would mathematics be possible? The news media are reporting polls showing a majority of those polled oppose gay marriage and favor a Constitutional amendment to ban it. However the "majority" is something like 55%, which is not enough (if translated into congressional action and state voting) to adopt such an amendment. It also strikes me that the purpose of the Constitution is to rein in the passions of the majority, unless they are well seasoned over a considerable period of time. The urge of a majority to amend the constitution to resolve every controversy is antithetical to the nature of a Constitution.
This response has been erased.
Re 276: How can you tell? I'm not willing to give them the information they asked for, so I won't be polled.
Re #278: Right, that kind of thing doesn't belong in the Constitution. A few years ago I was asked by a couple of lesbian friends of mine to sign a petition to add a "right of gays to marry" amendment to the Constitution. Although I support the concept of gay marriage, I refused to sign, on the same grounds that I would oppose an amendment forbidding such a right.
Re #280: If I find the link again, I'll post it, but someone was watching
their poll and noticed the total number of votes going down over
hours, with greater reductions in the votes for the "yes, gays
should be allowed to marry" and "okay, as long as they call it
something other than pweshious marriage" answers.
That's good enough. Thanks, Joe.
Re resp:267: I think this is a problem with fundamentalism in general. Re resp:278: As a friend of mine put it, this is an "oops, we accidentally gave too many rights to a minority" amendment. I think putting such a thing in the Constitution is distasteful. There aren't any current Amendments that *take rights away*.
re #284: > There aren't any current Amendments that *take rights away*. Not currently, no. But of course the reason you needed to add that qualification is because of Prohibition, which should serve as a reminder to all of us that even the substantial barriers we have in place are no guarantee that poorly thought-out amendments won't make it into the Constitution.
This response has been erased.
I sure hope that if we do end up with an ammendment prohibiting gay marriage, that we do not end up with organized crime smuggling in homosexuals from across the border...
I hope if the US ends up with an amendment banning bigotry and general right-wing stupidity they don't end up smuggling Tories from Canada.
Watch me make bru's head spin.. re #287: that's right! with benefits costs so much lower (because they're not allowed to have legally-recognized spouses or in many places to adopt children) employers will have a strong incentive to employ lower-cost homosexual workers and as a believer in unregulated market forces, you'll have to support their decision!
Heh. Wondrous.
(I'd think you'd _want_ to get rid of some Tories, twenex. ;)
I don't live inthe US or Canada, joe.
(I know.)
You have several choices: