Last year or maybe it was the year before that, George bush and the republican in congress wanted to pass an amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman. This amendment would make it difficult for homosexual to get married in states like Massachusetts. There are those that don’t agree with the state of Massachusetts allowing gays to married but it doesn’t means that the federal government had the right to intervening just because they disagree with the state. Trying to amend the constitution to override the states’ right to allow gay to married is an insult to those that support states right.
If the federal government wanted to pass a bill allowing gays to married, the supporter of states right would be against it, so it is logical to conclude that the states’ right supporter would allow the states to decided who can get married and the not the federal government. You don’t had be for gay marriage, but if you believe in states right, you would be against the federal government intervention in a states right to allow who to married, be they gay, or interracial. I believe that for once, it is the state that get the right to decided who shall get married and not the federal government because some fundamentalist in Missouri would be offended.
Now, beyond the states’ right over the government, lets talk about gays and marriage. To me, two people madly in love shouldn’t be denied the right to married. I don’t really see the harm in it, and what differences does it make if there a husband and wife, a wife and wife, or a husband and a husband. So long as two people want to spend the rest of their life together and want to make a commitment through marriage, so be it. I don’t really see the threat to heterosexual marriage. For those that are generally concern about gays getting married and their effect on children, they should tried talking to gays who had children and see if there are any effect at all.
Lets get to the point, what do people had against gays getting married. To some, homosexuality is a sin against god and to allow gays to get married is to recognize their existence. In southern states and the Midwest, laws had been pass defining the marriage between a man and a woman. But for those that are against gay marriage base on biblical terms, it is logical to conclude that they are for slavery and against interracial marriage. After all, slavery of African American was base on the Curse of Ham (a biblical story) and criminalizing interracial marriage in southern/Midwestern states was base on this: Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix (Loving vs. Virginia).
For some, the fear that all hell is going to break loose for to allow gays to get married than you would had to allow polygamy and incest. That is farfetched and laughable because the Supreme Court in the 18070’s had already decided that polygamy could be ban in states due to violation of women civil liberties and rights. Some believe that the federal government must made a definition between one man and woman because the church would be force to perform gay marriage. That is fear monger at it best for the first amendment’s free exercise clause allows the church to limit or choose to perform marriage base on their theological belief. Under the free exercise clause, a church can choose not to perform a ceremony for homosexual or welcome them with open arms and the government can’t intervene. To others, the purpose of marriage is recreation and gays can’t do that. So, does that means that senior citizen and sterilize people shouldn’t be able to married because they are too old or can’t reproduce biologically?
To the fundamentalist, “god” created one man and one woman, so gay doesn’t fit that description. Polygamist wed several wives because the men in the bible had several wives too, does it made it okay to enslave African American because they were curse through ham in the bible. Gay marriage would destroy children because there is no father and mother involve, so do that means that single parent aren’t real family because only one parent raise the child? What about foster kids, there parent aren’t there to raise them. For the conservative, you should heed this: private homosexual sex between consenting adults is something that a true conservative who respects individual liberty should have little trouble concluding that is an area not for the Lawgiver but for the Redeemer…no-fault divorce is a far graver threat to the institution of marriage than is the fact of homosexuality in our society.
So, lets get into the crux of it all, what do you had against gay marriage? I agree with the Supreme Court when they decided in the loving favor over the states of Virginia when they said this: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
I agree. People need to respect others rights. It doesn't matter the orientation. It only matters how much one loves another.
~~~~~~~
"I am a Stephens Woman."
http://progressiveu.org/blog/ashestree
The only way homosexuals could effect someone elses marriage, is if one of those married people is gay! People always talk about the "sanctity" of marriage and how gays effect it, but they are perfectly fine with the divorce rate. There are very few movements trying to outlaw divorce, and I think any more love in this hate filled world would be a help rather than a hindrance.
Your comments on Ham are not accurate. While it is true that some pro-slavery people used that as an argument, it is also true that there is nothing Biblical to support their position. Slavery, also, was hardly something new in the world. Slaves have been kept by people through the ages, and only in modern times has this begun to change. The Biblical references to slaves, and the laws related to slaves, are there for those times. Nothing there states that we should have slaves.
Interracial marriage is also not spoken of in the Bible. Again, you have taken the inaccurate arguments of some in the past, and used those to state that Christians of today would hold such views.
For the actual topic, there is much to support the position of being against gay "marriage". First, marriage was created by God, when He joined the first man and woman. It is an institution of the Lord, and legal recognition of this over the ages, and any changes in the opinions of people, cannot change what God created. To alter this is against His will. This is one concern of Christians on the subject.
Another concern is that homosexuals have stated, in their own literature and correspondence, that one main goal of "gay marriage" is the destruction of traditional marriage and families. They wish to toss out the morals and values that the majority of people accept as good and right. I have seen quotes from such publications. This might disturb some people, and I am sure that it will offend some, but I did not print those statements. I simply want to make you aware of them.
As for raising children, there are studies that show that children raised in non-traditional homes do suffer long-term effects. These are greater in cases with gay and lesbian couples. Now, I have to state that, as much as I disagree with the behavior, people that wish to have relations with those of the same sex have the right to do so. However, I do feel that laws protecting children are appropriate, as are laws protecting the country. In places where marriage rates have dropped, for whatever reason, there are rampant problems. This is a real concern.
Divorce is something that DOES concern Christians. Biblically, the only reason stated for divorce is cheating. No-fault divorce is a horrible thing. It is indeed a threat to marriage. This does not mean, though, that no other threat exists.
Racial classifications are NOT the same as behavioral classifications. Race is determined at birth, and it is my opinion that calling homosexuals a minority is simply not accurate. I can tell you, as a Christian mother of five, that I do not care what color of skin a potential mate for one of my children has, so long as that person is of the opposite sex, is Christian, and is a decent and caring person that will love their spouse.
As for the federal government intervening, this is tolerable if the subject is a threat to the nation. It is my opinion, and I am far from alone, that undermining marriage is a threat to the very survival of the nation. It is historically true that nations fall after their moral foundations are removed or destroyed.
It is an institution of the Lord, and legal recognition of this over the ages, and any changes in the opinions of people, cannot change what God created.
I know this may surprise you, but not all marriages are Christian. In fact, I'd wager to say that most aren't. Especially with Islam gaining as much popularity as it is. Would you suggest that all marriages that DON'T take place in a church are illegal? If you don't suggest that, then not all marriages have anything to do with God. And since marriages were recognized in plenty of polytheistic, pantheistic, etc cultures, legal recognition of marriage as an 'institution of the Lord' isn't entirely accurate either.
Another concern is that homosexuals have stated, in their own literature and correspondence, that one main goal of "gay marriage" is the destruction of traditional marriage and families.
Now, now, you don't expect to make this claim and not be asked to back it up, do you? Good, cause I'd like sources now, please.
As for raising children, there are studies that show that children raised in non-traditional homes do suffer long-term effects.
So your concern should be divorce rather than gay couples, as I'm almost certain that studies have been done to show that children in TWO PARENT households are far better off than children in single parent households, regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. I'll have to look up studies when I get home, though, as I am not currently on my school's network.
Divorce is something that DOES concern Christians.
Oh, I'm glad. I fear children are much worse off in a situation where the parents hate each other than where they are broken up, though. And if my mother were a lesbian, I'd much rather see her happily married to a woman she loves than miserable by herself and harming herself because of the persecution of homosexuals.
Racial classifications are NOT the same as behavioral classifications. Race is determined at birth, and it is my opinion that calling homosexuals a minority is simply not accurate.
There is evidence that it is biological. Much the same way that other behavioral traits, such as intelligence, shyness, aggressiveness, etc, are genetic (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml). Of course, there is evidence that all women are bisexual, and it is simply luck of the draw who they end up attracted to. Men are less pliant, though, it seems. That indicates that homosexuality is also determined at birth, and is very much similar to race in that regard, though the comparison is not perfect.
I'm curious why you don't think that homosexuals are a minority, though. A minority is a group of people that is not in the majority. That is clearly the case here, as homosexuals make up something of 2-3% of the population. What else would they be, if not a minority?
As for the federal government intervening, this is tolerable if the subject is a threat to the nation.
And yet, Canada is doing perfectly fine. I can attest that the Netherlands are wonderful, since I'm currently visiting. Belgium is having problems with language barriers more than anything else. I'm pretty sure Spain is managing perfectly ok as well. So, I really don't see how allowing same-sex marriage would be a threat to the nation, when so many nations have been managing well for years with this 'threat'.
I also fail to see how it is a threat to you, personally, since my two gay friends getting married would have absolutely no effect on your life. None. Zip. Zilch. The only way it would affect MY life is the same way it affects me if my heterosexual friends get married... I have married friends. That's it.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Your analysis, I suggest, does not adequately come to
grips with the social institutional realities of marriage.
Your elision is a common one in the popular debate, a shift from the macro to the micro.Genderless marriage proponents often deploy the language of autonomous individuality. By that, I mean a discourse focused solely on individuals qua individuals, or couples qua couples, with no reference to their social context or to institutional realities.
Your example of this is actually an effective political tactic deployed by genderless marriage proponents. The tactic is to ask, "How can letting me and my [same-sex] partner marry in any way hurt your marriage?" Or, "How is Jim and John marrying going to have any effect on yours and your husband's relationship."
By its very language, this question forces the issue into the micro framework, that is, it requires that the marriage issue be decided on the basis of benefits and harms to specific individuals or couples, as in "me and my partner" or "you and your husband." And by that same language, the question precludes consideration of the marriage issue in the macro framework, that is, the framework provided by social
institutional studies.
Moreover, it is precisely because of this "forcing" mechanism that the question is so often an effective political tactic. After all, not many lay people are prepared to respond by saying, "Well, if Jim and John marry, that means that our society will have changed a core constitutive meaning of the vital social institution of marriage from the union of a man and a woman to the union of any two persons. With that radical change, the old institution will disappear and therefore, necessarily, its invaluable social goods will disappear. Those social goods have meant a great deal to my forebears and their society and to me and my society and I want my posterity to have those social goods down through their generations, because I don't think they can have a good society without them."
With that radical change, the old institution will disappear and therefore, necessarily, its invaluable social goods will disappear.
What social goods would disappear? I fail to see the ruin of society in Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, and others. And we've faced PLENTY of radical changes in the past, and have turned out what I think is for the better. We got rid of a supposedly oppressive government and formed our own. We ended the institution of slavery (we were slow on that one, too). We permitted women the right to vote. We promote equal rights among all citizens. These are extremely radical ideas, ideas that many other countries have based their political systems on (France especially comes to mind).
Just because something calls for change, doesn't mean society will be the worse for it.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Once again (this is getting to be a habit) you ignore the context and main thrust of my post.
This (again) was a response to lgrf4evr question Do gays threaten "your" marriage?
I exposed his micro to macro deception.
You then chime in and ask for the answer...well I'm more than capable of responding to the "How" question.
My only point in the post you responded to was to point out how the framing was dishonest.
Oh, were you talking to me initially? I couldn't tell, since you have YET to click the reply link at the bottom of the comment when you want to respond. Really, it's not that difficult to do.
I tend to pick out little things in posts. Why? Because I get tired reading long posts and tend to respond to certain points that people make, rather than every point that they make. If you don't want to discuss it, don't put it in your post. Plain and simple.
As far as your macro vs. micro argument, my question is valid to the argument. You claim that we should stick to the macro, the social context of the situation, yes? Well, WHY? Because social goods would disappear? How?
You claim that the framing of the question was dishonest, and then evade the questions that are posed to you. Very nice.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
#1. I do hit the reply button every time. Why this doesn’t chime in at your end is as frustrating to me as to you. (I hit the reply under your post? Correct?...in order to “reply” to what you ask??)
“I tend to pick out little things in posts. Why? Because I get tired reading long posts and tend to respond to certain points that people make, rather than every point that they make. If you don't want to discuss it, don't put it in your post. Plain and simple. “
Well…you get tired. To bad. If you take peoples comments out of their larger context you end up sounding trite and dismissive of the broader arguments.
That is plain & simple also….No?
“As far as your macro vs. micro argument, my question is valid to the argument. You claim that we should stick to the macro, the social context of the situation, yes? Well, WHY? Because social goods would disappear? How? “
Well that’s the meat of it…is it not?
Let’s start with a little homework. It’s difficult for some to understand the social institutional realities surrounding a change. I am aware that such understanding are argued. It is enough for me to establish that this argument is widespread and therefore valid.
Also- here is an article entitled
The Future of Tradition
Overview-A gay man discusses the fragility of social customs like marriage from a historical/philosophical perspective.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/2932146.html
“You claim that the framing of the question was dishonest, and then evade the questions that are posed to you. Very nice.”
The framing was dishonest. You cannot expect someone to “prove” a discreet and demonstrateable harm to an individual marriage based on a macro change in definition.
It might interest you to know that one of the common refrains by advocates of “no-fault” divorce laws was………
“What do two people getting divorced have to do with YOUR marriage????”
I'm sick of arguing with you right now, and I'm in a really pissy mood, so it's probably better that I don't. But I did want to comment on this:
It might interest you to know that one of the common refrains by advocates of “no-fault” divorce laws was………
“What do two people getting divorced have to do with YOUR marriage????”
So? As the child of parents who have both been divorced, twice, I don't hold anything close to the traditional Christian view of divorce. No, divorce is not a pretty thing, but neither is two people in the same household hating each other. Tell me how THAT affects children. My problem is not with divorce, but rather how people view marriage as a whole. Most people who get divorced either 1) shouldn't have been married in the first place, or 2) rushed into marriage and didn't want to stick things out when things got tough. Divorce is definitely the best option for the first group, and the second... well, I'm not sure what to think about them.
Your point has been noted, though.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Factually incorrect. According to statistics reported by the Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures...
"Since 1970, there has been a downward long-term trend in the number of marriages...The extra same-sex marriages that are included in the count since 2001 keep the level a little higher, but not enough to prevent the overall decline...In spite of all of this, the number of married people as a share of the total population has only decreased marginally, from 47 percent (1970) to 43 percent (2003)...The fact that the number of marriages is declining and that less value is attached to marriage does not mean that the old ideal of a relationship is also disappearing. On the contrary, within a cultural development which stresses the hyper-individual, the authentic and the real (an emotions culture) there seems to be room for relationships which do not need official recognition. It is the qualitative satisfaction which the relationship provides, which provides is main source of justification. More and more people opt for relationship types other than marriage which are less controlled by governmental or religious prescriptions...The number of divorces has risen sharply, especially in the nineteen seventies. Nowadays, almost three out of ten marriage end in divorce. In 1970, the top year for weddings, there were only 10 thousand divorces in The Netherlands. Five years later that number had doubled to 20 thousand. One of the most significant moments of increase of the number of divorces was the introduction of the Income Support Law, which helped women to choose the state instead of their husband as the main breadwinner." (LINK)
The obvious fallacy in this arugment is the fact that same-sex marriages weren't recognized in the Netherlands until 2001. The trends you describe pre-date the legal recognition of same-sex relationships in that country by several decades. In fact, the CBS has reported that that trend has begun to reverse itself, noting that in 2006 the rate of marriage actually increased. Similarly, the robust system of civil partnership in the Netherlands has (again according to the CBS) also been increasing prevalent since the 2001. One canard used by the opponents of same-sex marriage is to ignore the fact that many couples in that country are choosing registered partnership instead of marriage, implying that families are being harmed when in fact they are simply supporting themselves with through the alternative venue of registered partnerships.
I also have to point out that your own source questions the validity of making the very leap to suggest causation that you have offered...
In fact, the existing research seems to utterly reject the connection you suggest. According to Darren R. Spedale (who spent two years on a Fulbright Fellowship in Denmark researching Scandinavian same-sex partnerships) and William N. Eskridge, Jr. (the John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence at the Yale Law School.)...
These are no longer hypothetical questions, because same-sex marriage is no longer just a theoretical possibility. Denmark was the first country to extend the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples in 1989; and although the law used the name "registered partnership," straight as well as lesbian and gay Danes have generally equated these partnerships with marriage. Norway followed the Danish example in 1993, Sweden in 1995. While the actual title of "marriage" has been granted to gay couples elsewhere in the world only within the last five years, the Nordic countries have provided us with a rich source of information, and a 17-year history, as to what actually happens in society when gay and lesbian citizens marry.
Social conservatives suggest that legal recognition of same-sex couples has harmed society...However, there is no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry weakens the institution. If anything, the numbers indicate the opposite. A decade after Denmark, Norway and Sweden passed their respective partnership laws, heterosexual marriage rates had risen 10.7% in Denmark; 12.7% in Norway; and a whopping 28.8% in Sweden. In Denmark over the last few years, marriage rates are the highest they've been since the early 1970s. Divorce rates among heterosexual couples, on the other hand, have fallen. A decade after each country passed its partnership law, divorce rates had dropped 13.9% in Denmark; 6% in Norway; and 13.7% in Sweden. On average, divorce rates among heterosexuals remain lower now than in the years before same-sex partnerships were legalized.
Is there a correlation, then, between same-sex marriage and a strengthening of the institution of marriage? It would be difficult, and suspect, to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between these trends in heterosexual marriage and marriage rights for gays and lesbians. But the facts demonstrate that there is no proof that same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage, or children. An optimistic reading of the facts might even suggest that the energy and enthusiasm that same-sex couples bring to the institution of marriage may cause unmarried heterosexual couples to take a fresh look at marriage as an option.
Our research has also uncovered additional social benefits. In dozens of interviews with partnered couples and through other sources, we found that marriage rights had an important beneficial effect not only on the couples themselves, but on their local and national communities as well. Couples reported that their relationships were stronger and more durable, that relationships with family members had deepened, that co-workers had become more tolerant and supportive, and their children felt greater validation by having married parents. Many couples reported a greater emphasis on monogamy, which may be reflected by the fact that national rates of HIV and STD infections declined in each of the Scandinavian countries in the years after they passed their partnership laws. (LINK)
If you feel so inclined, you can review the a more detailed account of the research conduced by Eskridge, Spedale (and Hans Ytterberg, the Associate Judge of Appeals and Ombudsman, The Office of Ombudsman Against Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation, Sweden), here.
Enjoy,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.