From what I have been able to surmise, there are seven arguments that have been given for "gay marriage."
So-called "same-sex" or "gay" marriage is quite the issue these days, and not unlike any of the other charged issues of the times, it is mired in confusion. At a later time, I will sort out the central arguments advanced by its detractors. At present, however, I examine those claims made on its behalf. Since apologists for "gay marriage" are advocating a transformative change in the institution of marriage, the burden of proof that such a change will ultimately be to the advantage of society falls upon their shoulders.
From what I have been able to surmise, there are seven arguments that have been given for "gay marriage." I will first state the arguments and, afterwards, reply to them in the order stated.
(1). Mutually consenting adult American citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender, have the equal "right" to marry one another. Thus, the denial to homosexual citizens of "the right" to marry other homosexuals is a denial of their civic rights.
(2). Marriage is a human good in that it contributes immeasurably to the flourishing of those engaged in it, for marriage is rooted in love and a life without love can't but be wretched. Now every human being has "the right" to avail him or herself of the good of marriage, for every human being has "the right" to love and happiness. Therefore, the denial to gays of their "right" to marry other gays is a denial of their human rights.
(3). It is true that the legalization of "same-sex marriage" would require a modification of "the traditional definition" of marriage, but the history of the understanding of marriage is nothing short of the history of the modifications that it has endured. The ideal of monogamous marriage, for example, with which contemporary critics of "same-sex marriage" unfailingly equate "traditional marriage," isn't "traditional" at all, as far as history is measured; rather, by this standard, it is a relatively recent development.
(4). It is as irrational, arbitrary, and, thus, immoral for the State to proscribe "same-sex marriage" as it was irrational, arbitrary, and immoral for it to have proscribed "interracial marriage" in the past. Hence, proscriptions of "same-sex marriage" are "discriminatory."
(5). Opposition to "same-sex marriage" is ultimately motivated by nothing more or less than a raw, undifferentiated but sophistically concealed "hatred" of gays, or "homophobia."
(6). Far from imperiling "traditional marriage," as critics alleged, allowing homosexuals to marry will strengthen both the institution of marriage as well as society as a whole, for marriage, given that it consists in the pledging of one's very life to that of his or her spouse, promotes stability, individual responsibility, and selflessness while discouraging selfishness and sexual promiscuity.
(7). Given the religious inspiration underlying much opposition to "gay marriage," the prohibition of it violates "the separation of Church and State."
Response to (1): The first argument in this set, in spite of whatever plausibility it may initially seem to possess, is actually quite weak. Civic or civil rights, in contradistinction to so-called "Human Rights," are conditioned by a variety of culturally and temporally contingent considerations. In 21st century America, for instance, the right to marry is qualified by a set of specific conditions determined by the current sensibilities of the dominant culture and extends only to those citizens who have been deemed to have satisfied them: one has the right to marry as long as the marriage into which one enters is monogamous; one is 18 years or older; one is unrelated by blood to one's prospective spouse; and one's prospective spouse is of the opposite sex. It is an instance of the worst and most glaring kind of question-begging to argue from this right of citizens to marry to the conclusion that "same sex marriage" is encompassed by this right, for this is exactly what needs to be established.
Response to (2): In claiming for gays everywhere and at all times a "Human Right" to marry other gays, the second argument goes awry before it even gets going. There are several difficulties here, but we need consider only one, for if this criticism is correct, it would be superfluous to list the others.
To say of "X" that it is a "Human Right" is to imply that there are no conceivable countervailing considerations that could ever prevail over it; to deny one his or her "Human Rights," regardless of the cogency of the reasons or the extraordinariness of the circumstances in which the right is asserted, is, ultimately, a moral offense devoid of justification. Notwithstanding the sophistication and thoughtfulness of the attempts on the part of several philosophers of "Human Rights" over the last few decades to circumvent this counterintuitive implication-"Human Rights" aren't necessarily "absolute," for some are "inalienable" and others "indefeasible," but neither of these last two are synonymous with either one another or the first, etc.-none have proven convincing. A "Human Right" is, by definition, an unconditional, an absolute. But as Burke long ago observed, even if we concede the reality of "Rights" that transcend civilization, the government of no society can be guided by them, for it is precisely for the sake of qualifying these "Rights" that civil society exists in the first place. To paraphrase Burke, it is the culturally embedded citizen and no other to which political decisions must be addressed.
Response to (3): It is of course true that, historically, the concept of marriage admits of a multiplicity of conceptions. On this score I will say more below, but for now it should suffice to point out that while it is wildly unlikely that the understanding of any idea can escape modification, given the constant flux characteristic of our world, not all changes are of the same order or kind. Some changes are identity enhancing, while others extinguish the identity of the being to which they occur.
Thus, that the understanding of marriage has undergone alterations suggests that critics who (foolishly) speak as if this is the very first time any such changes have been proposed are driven by either ignorance or dishonesty, but it does not establish that the modifications that are now being recommended should be endorsed.
Response to (4): The argument analogizing the legal proscription of "gay marriage" to that of interracial marriage is no less fallacious than any of the others that we have thus far treated. The analogy is weak, for reflection on the history of marriage and its manifestations in societies around the globe reveals in no time that if there are any indispensable components to marriage, or if it has been thought by the world's peoples that there are essential conditions in the absence of the satisfaction of which marriage is unrealizable, racial homogeneity is certainly not one of them. Matters are clearly otherwise, however, when we turn to heterosexuality.
Besides this, cries of "irrationality," "arbitrariness," and "discrimination" are almost invariably used as rhetorical weapons by which apologists for "gay marriage" seek to intimidate their opponents into acquiescing to their demands. That the critics of "gay marriage" and, for all that, interracial marriage, submit reasons for their positions means that, even if it were true that they are motivated by the most nefarious of intentions, whatever else we may say of them and their perspective, we cannot legitimately say that they are irrational; there is no viewpoint, however silly it may be, that is literally arbitrary in the sense of being capricious, for every position is attached to a host of presuppositions "in the air," so to speak, of the culture and temporal period to which the agent belongs, and at least some of these suppositions can, in principle, be stated as reasons; and "discrimination," in spite of the beating that the term has taken during the last fifty years or so, is an inescapable, fundamental feature of everyday human life, for insofar as we lack God's knowledge, we have no option but to exercise discrimination. Of course, this means that we can't but make mistakes, but it also means that by discriminating in favor of the experience of past generations from every culture the world over by disallowing a radical change in our marital arrangements we rely upon the only means at our disposal that holds out the greatest potential for averting catastrophe. In other words, although the proponents of "gay marriage" may be correct, if they are interested in arguing in good faith, they can hardly fault their opponents for being "discriminatory."
Response to (5): This last claim on behalf of "same sex marriage" is the most ridiculous of all. In fact, it can't really even be called an argument unless and until its' implicit premise is made explicit-but it's not clear what that premise is. It appears that the argument, fully stated, would run something like this:
P1: It is always and everywhere immoral to act solely or primarily from a hatred of homosexuals ("homophobia").
P2: Resistance to "same sex marriage" is motivated solely or primarily by a hatred of homosexuals ("homophobia").
Conclusion: Therefore, resistance to "same sex marriage" is always and everywhere immoral.
If this is what proponents of "gay marriage" argue, then the weakness of this argument should at once be spotted for what it is.
First of all, given the wide range of civil liberties and rights, to say nothing of above average levels of education and economic well being that gays in today's America enjoy, the charge that opposition to the legalization of "gay marriage" is fundamentally informed by a "hatred" of gays is a specimen of the worst kind of dishonesty, and it strains credibility to the snapping point.
Second, as anyone who is remotely introspective is all too painfully aware, it is often difficult enough to know one's own motives for one's actions. It is exponentially more difficult, then, and, in point of fact, not infrequently impossible, to discern the motives of others, especially when they are strangers. Besides, the only evidence of which we can avail ourselves in inferring others' motives consists in their utterances and actions, and by this standard, there is no evidence to substantiate the allegation that the critics of "gay marriage" are "hateful" of gays.
Third, even if it is true that the opponents of "gay marriage" are hateful toward gays, this does not prove that they oppose "gay marriage" because of their hatred of gays. There isn't a conceivable motive that is action-specifying: hatred, like any other motive, can find expression in a range of disparate actions. For example, it is not at all implausible to imagine that one who genuinely hates homosexuals (whatever this could mean) might support "gay marriage," not because he supports gays, but because he hopes that if the heterosexual majority has something as unusual and novel as "gay marriage" thrown in its collective face, if it is compelled to essentially endorse homosexuality by permitting "gay marriage," this may be just what is needed for it to lash back, not just against "gay marriage," but, at long last, against all "gay rights." Nor is it hardly inconceivable that the supporters of "gay marriage" just might be motivated by the need to conceal their own "hatred" of gays. And for that matter, could it not be the case that homosexuals who want to "marry" other homosexuals, from an intense longing to satisfy the heterosexual norm, might be motivated by "hatred" of their own sexual orientation, a "hatred" of their very selves?
My point is not that these are the real motives underlying the support given to "gay marriage," but that because of the difficulties with which the enterprise of discerning others' motives must contend-difficulties that owe both to the inaccessibility of other minds and the indeterminacy of motives themselves-partisans on both sides of this issue ought to avoid speculation over the "real" motives of their rivals, to say nothing of issuing dogmatic verdicts on them.
Fourth, it is far from obvious that "homophobia" is equivalent to a "hatred" of gays. Literally, "homophobia" is a fear of gays. While fear often leads to hatred, the two feelings are clearly not one and the same. A child may fear his parent, and a student his teacher, but this fear is compatible with and typically attended by love and respect. And many a warrior can attest that a certain fear of their enemies has co-existed seamlessly with a respect for their prowess.
Fifth, if "hatred" of gays is always immoral, it isn't self-evidently so. The question that needs to be asked is: Why is "hatred" of homosexuals wrong? Since hatred is a feeling or disposition that more people than not in our society deem undesirable, presumably "hatred" of homosexuals is wrong because the hatred of anyone is immoral.
Now if this is why "hatred" of homosexuals is morally illicit, then the argument needs to be reformulated as follows:
P1: It is always and everywhere immoral to act from hatred of anyone.
P2: Opposition to "gay marriage" is motivated by hatred of gays.
C: Therefore, opposition to "gay marriage" is immoral.
This formulation of the argument is no less problematic than the original, for the first premise is questionable. Is it really immoral for a man whose daughter was abducted, gang raped, and tortured to death to hate her assailants? Maybe it is, but if so, the burden is upon those who make this contention to substantiate it. The point is that if hatred is invariably immoral, we deserve reasons to illuminate how it is so.
There is another challenge here that the proponents of "gay marriage" must meet. Presumably, the mere fact that homosexuals are denied something that they value or desire proves that the resistance which they face is driven by "hate." The grossly simplistic and glaring question-begging of this reasoning aside, when taken to its extreme logical term, it's blatant silliness becomes obvious as well, for its inescapable implication is that whenever anyone's desires are frustrated by others, it can only be because of the latter's hatred of them. So, for instance, that Mormons and Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and Africa are prohibited by law from entering into polygamous marriages can only mean that the non-Mormon and non-Muslim majority "hates" them.
This, needless to say, is ridiculous, but it is no less so than the claim that opposition to "gay marriage" is rooted in hatred of gays.
Response to (6): It may very well be the case that "gay marriage" will not have the deleterious effects on the institution of marriage that its critics predict, and it could also be true that "gay marriage" could contribute to the cultivation of the virtues of individual responsibility and selflessness, as its supporters claim. We can't know for sure.
And that is precisely the point.
In varying degrees, virtually every person has a conservative disposition with respect to change. Now, contrary to what leftists of various types have been telling us for centuries, there isn't a single person, conservative or otherwise, "opposed to change," whatever such a ridiculous expression could possibly mean. Change is constant. But the conservative disposition to which I refer is a disposition to prefer small changes over large ones, gradual changes over revolutionary changes, changes that are to as great an extent possible continuous with the past over those that radically depart from it.
That every person is "a creature of habit," as we say, decisively establishes the universality of the conservative disposition, for to develop a habit, to say nothing of multiple habits-a person without any habits at all is inconceivable-is to acquire an attachment to the present, and thus, an aversion to anything that threatens to disrupt, much less radically disrupt, it.
"Gay marriage" would mark, at the very least, a potentially radical alteration in the institution of marriage. We don't know what its impact, not just on marriage, but on a host of institutions, will be, but we do know that it will have an impact, and a considerable one at that. The critics of "gay marriage" do no one a bad turn, then, in refusing to exchange a certain present for a most uncertain future.
Response to (7): That most (but far from all) critics of "gay marriage" are religious, and that their resistance to the imposition upon society of a "right" on the part of homosexuals to "marry" other homosexuals may be informed by religious conviction, is neither here nor there. There are at a minimum three reasons for this.
The first has to do with the consideration that from its inception until the present, there has never been a time when the overwhelming majority of American citizens haven't been self-consciously theistic or, more accurately, monotheistic. Indeed, it is with justice that it is said of the very character of the American people that it is religious in nature, a fact amply attested to by the range of governmentally-endorsed exhibitions-from the Declaration of Independence to the American currency itself-through which that character is expressed. That the majority of her citizens should now be motivated by religious conviction to oppose "gay marriage" is neither surprising nor injurious to their case.
Secondly, to know only that one's "religious" beliefs inform one's judgments isn't to know nearly as much as is usually thought, especially when, as is the case in both America and the Western world generally, the dominant religion is practically inseparable in all sorts of imperceptible respects from the dominant culture itself. To put it bluntly, if not for Christianity, if there was a Western civilization at all, it would be utterly unrecognizable to those of us who know it as it is. The composition of the West is not without its share of ingredients borrowed from paganism, it is true, but such ideas were long ago Christianized.
What this suggests is that because it isn't possible to detach those ideas that one acquired from the explicit scriptural and creedal teachings of one's religious denomination from those that have always been "in the air" of one's culture, even those who aren't self-consciously religious are still, in some relevant sense, religious; at any rate, they are not devoid of a religious sensibility that they have unselfconsciously imbibed from their culture.
That this is true brings me to the third reason why the religious inspiration that allegedly underlies opposition to "gay marriage" is not to the point: the monogamous ideal of which supporters of "gay marriage" clamor to partake is a legacy of a particular and distinctively religious tradition, Christianity. In other words, if "gay marriage" ought to be recognized by the State because opposition to it is religiously inspired and it is unlawful for the State to endorse religious considerations in making policy, then "gay marriage" ought to be proscribed, for the notion that only those arrangements that consist in a loving, lifelong commitment between two adults ought to be affirmed as marriage is no less religiously inspired-or at least religion was its original inspiration.
The arguments for "gay marriage" range from pathetically weak to profoundly problematic. This, at any rate, is what I have tried to demonstrate.
This, of course, doesn't necessarily mean that better arguments will not be forthcoming; but it does mean that until such arguments as there may be are provided, the case for "gay marriage" collapses.
As an addendum to your response to point number 4, I would add that skin color is an inherent characteristic whereas sexuality is not (or at least has not been shown to be, see here and here). Therefore an analogy of gay marriage to interracial marriage is a rather poor one. This same point of comparison is frequently employed by supporters of homosexuals openly serving in the military (desegregation of blacks vs. integration of open homosexuals) and it is equally weak in that conversation. Defending the practice of discrimination as a necessity of decision making sidesteps addressing this point, but I think it is relevant because the criteria one uses in the process of “discriminating” have varying degrees of legitimacy, particularly when the discrimination is institutional. For instance, it would be rather absurd to disallow obese people from riding on the same bus or drinking from the same public water fountain as slim people because there is little, if any, rational justification for using that physical attribute as a criteria for riding a bus or using a drinking fountain. But disallowing obese people from serving in the military because their physical characteristics might endanger themselves and those around them in a combat situation, on the other hand, is quite reasonable. A similar example could be made out of “discriminating” against a handicapped person when his disability makes it impossible for him to perform a particular job function. Not all “discrimination” is created equal.
I cannot comprehend how a so-called intellectual conservative could advocate for government control over such an important and deeply personal decision making process. Do you want the government to tell you which bread you can buy? What automobile you can drive? What TV programs or movies you can see? No? Then what makes you think that anyone wants the government to decide who we can or cannot marry?
First, let’s firmly establish that there are two distinct definitions for the word ‘marriage.’ Some individuals believe that a ‘marriage’ is a religious ceremony with significant religious meaning. Individuals are welcome to this belief. The word ‘marriage’ has religious significance only for those specific individuals who want there to be a connection between the common, English-language word ‘marriage’ and their religion. Other individuals, especially those with no particular religious belief, may have strong opinions about marriage, but these opinions may or may not have any connection to a specific religious practice, ceremony, doctrine, or belief.
In a completely separate context, we use the word ‘marriage’ as the collective term for specific, secular, government-granted benefits, protections, and responsibilities. We do not live in a theocracy. These benefits and protections (as defined by modern legal practice) are completely independent of any religious doctrine or belief.
Religious individuals and organizations are welcome to perform religious ceremonies for anyone or to exclude individuals from their religious ceremonies as they prefer. My comment has nothing to do with religious freedoms.
On the other hand, equal protection before the law is an ethical and constitutional issue.
In the Old Segregationist South, marriage laws could be summarized as follows:
1. Be at or above the appropriate age.
2. Be able to understand the responsibilities of marriage.
3. Be in love with someone of your own race.
Interracial marriage was prohibited because of religious beliefs concerning race and an immoral philosophy called eugenics, specifically that intermarriage of the “dark and loathsome” races with the “white and delightsome” race would harm the superior, white race. (Ask a Mormon about the significance of these specific terms.)
Many people were happy with this law. The law did not impact their choice. For these individuals, the same-race requirement was moot. The impact of the law was significant only for the minority of people who wanted to marry a person of a different race.
Even though the law was the same for all couples, the impact was not the same. Not all individuals were treated equally because the impact of the law was not exactly the same for all couples.
Can you see where we are headed?
Here in Utardia—The Pretty Hate State (a.k.a. Utah), current marriage laws can be summarized as follows:
1. Be at or above the appropriate age.
2. Be able to understand the responsibilities of marriage.
3. Be in love with someone with a different gender.
Same-gender marriage is prohibited because of an immoral philosophy called, “My religious leaders say that society will go to Hell in a hand basket if we allow ‘the gays’ the same secular benefits that many of us now enjoy.” (Or other reasons that are illogical, fear-mongering, or just plain stooopid.)
Many people are happy with this law. The law does not impact their choice. For these individuals, the different-gender requirement is moot. The impact of the law is significant only for the minority of people who want to marry a same-gender person.
Back to my original question. Do you want to government to decide who you can or cannot love?
Are you willing to allow the government to decide who you can marry based on the belief that some people are inferior because of the color of their skin?
Except for a few slime-sucking racists, every intelligent adult recognizes that the government has no business deciding which marriages are “appropriate” based on skin pigmentation.
Why then do so-called conservatives believe that government should decide which marriages are “appropriate” based on gender?
The answer has nothing to do with children. The government grants the secular benefits of ‘marriage’ to individuals regardless of their ability or intent to have children.
The answer has nothing to do with tradition. people who state that heterosexual marriage is a long-established tradition fail to realize that slavery and the subjugation of women and children were long-established traditions for most of the same period of time. Women no longer are treated as personal property. Some people see the breaking of long-established tradition as absolutely necessary when our inner sense of right and wrong tell us to do so.
Many of us, religious and not-particularly-religious alike, follow The Golden Rule—Treat other people the way you want to be treated. Every major world religion and every major world culture includes some form of The Golden Rule in its teachings. Can you go to a local government office, fill our a brief form, pay a small fee, participate in a simple ceremony (or a really elaborate and expensive one if you prefer—which may or may not be performed in a religious context, again depending only on the preferences of the individuals involved), and receive a secular, government-issued piece of paper that instantly grants emotional and financial benefits to the person you love? Why do you deny your neighbor the same opportunity?
David
Sandy UT
Do you want to government to decide who you can or cannot love?
Subtle change of phraseology. The government cannot and does not decide who or what you may or may not “love”, be it a person, a car, a dog or yourself. The topic was the religious, social, and legal institution of marriage. Most of your arguments were already addressed in the original article if you actually care to read it rather than deliver an emotional appeal in the form of a monologue.
A seldom mentioned aspect of the gay marriage debate is the economic benefit. Before this drive to legalize gay marriage several tax and insurance advantages came with a marriage between a man and a woman. These breaks have been chipped away with little fan fare and have resulted in the decline of marriage among the younger generation. Along with “No Fault” divorce, another leftist idea, the demise of the family is nearly complete. Children can no longer depend on their father and mother being together to celebrate their 50th anniversary as my generation did. Love whomever you want, but don’t mess with the family.
After working my way through that incredibly obfuscatory wall of text, I do have a few comments:
1. This is not a criminal trial, it is a debate. “Burden of proof” is a concept that applies almost solely to criminal trials, and is *intended* to *handicap* one side of the argument. Putting “burden of proof” on one side of an argument is the equivalent of hosting a presidential debate where one candidate got to speak first and last, and always got the last word on each question. *Claiming* that the “burden of proof” belongs to your opponent is like asking an opponent in a game of “Go” to grant you a free stone. It is a preliminary admission that your opponent would, given equal odds, maul you like a Lion pride taking down a baby carriage.
2. Your argument (such as it is) relies entirely on the burden of proof being on the other side.
Without this presumption (and most of the people whose minds you might actually change do not make this presumption), your argument boils down to “If they are right about any of these things, their side is correct, but they *might* be wrong about all of these things, therefore they’re wrong.”
This argument is flawed on simple logical grounds.
For these reasons, I’m not really sure what you’ve accomplished here, beyond wasting your readers’ time.
Also, you missed a spot:
Gay Marriage would create family situations in which the two partners would feel the need to adopt in order to raise children. Adoption services would become more effective, the need for Abortion would decrease, and the number of orphaned children relying on the State would decrease.
There are a number of additional practical reasons, including such rights as hospital visitation and such financial considerations as tax perks and inheritance law.
These are extended under marriage to heterosexual couples, but no institution exists to extend them to homosexual couples. This is simply unequal.
“civil unions” is one oft-proposed solution, but it smacks of “separate but equal” and, due to the laws of marriage and civil union being separate (and therefore subject to separate revisions) they would, inevitably, *be* unequal, if only at certain times and if only temporarily.
Marriage as a religious institution is one thing, but since Christian advocates succeeded in making marriages a civil union (in order to garner for them civil benefits), the marriage is now a *state* institution, and it must be treated as such.
“Burden of proof” has a specific legal meaning, but is a useful concept in any argument involving a challenge to an existing idea. Typically when a new idea challenges an old idea, be it in politics, science (including social sciences like economics), religion, or philosophy, it is incumbent upon the new idea to prove its superiority to the old idea. Otherwise there’s not much reason to adopt the new idea in place of the old one.
“civil unions” is one oft-proposed solution, but it smacks of “separate but equal” and, due to the laws of marriage and civil union being separate (and therefore subject to separate revisions) they would, inevitably, *be* unequal, if only at certain times and if only temporarily.
Who said that the legal distinction between so-far non-existent separately-defined “civil unions” and “marriages” was, or had to be, any different? And why is giving homosexual couples the exact same contract rights, but withholding the distinction of the term “marriage” because of its religious connotation unfair? Until any of those things actually come to pass, you are arguing against a strawman.
Most curious to me in this entire debate is why a homosexual couple would wish to engage in something bearing the name “marriage” when all of the world’s “big 3″ religions – Christianity, Islam, and Judaism – which are responsible for creating the institution, forbid homosexuality? Wouldn’t it actually be preferable, if you disagree with the entire religiously-based concept of marriage, to have a secular institution devoid of any hint of religious derivation?
PM
“Most curious to me in this entire debate is why a homosexual couple would wish to engage in something bearing the name “marriage”"
Answer: Show me the money!
Show me the money!
I have a good friend who, because he and his partner cannot marry in Missouri, carries a copy of his will in his pocket at all times, “just in case.”
So you’re actually not too far off there.
-
Incidentally Patrick, you are misapplying the concept of “burden of proof” by generalizing it.
“Burden of Proof” in philosophy refers to the tendency of new ideas to be responsible for providing evidence which allows them to overturn the old ideas which are entrenched. Thus far, you are correct.
But the reason they are entrenched is that they have a body of evidence of their own, which already exists. Thus, burden of proof is not a matter of “old vs. new” it’s a matter of one idea being already well-researched, and the new idea needing to overturn not just the old idea, but all other co-dependent ideas.
For example, creationists will never win the fight against Evolution, because to overturn the idea of evolution they must first overturn the evidenciary foundation on which it lies.
Similarly (as mentioned in the wiki page for “burden of proof”) most scientists agree that cold fusion is impossible, due to the sheer quantity of scientific theories and research data that such a thing would overturn. However, were cold fusion to occur before their eyes, they’d be forced not to ignore it, but rather to discard all those other theories.
With that in mind, however, “Heterosexual Marriage” is not a scientific theory. It doesn’t have a “body of evidence” that “Gay Marriage” must overturn.
You cannot have “burden of proof” in the legal sense because this is not a trial. You cannot have “burden of proof” in the scientific or philosophical sense because this is not a matter of theory or logic.
The concept of “burden of proof” just does not apply here, because nothing is being proven at all. The argument isn’t about evidence, it’s about rights, and whether certain people should have them.
“The argument isn’t about evidence, it’s about rights, and whether certain people should have them.”
No, because there is no right to marriage. Marriage is a religous concept co-opted by government to give certain privileges to certain people who qualify.
Or perhaps you are arguing that 12 year olds are being denied their right to marry.
You cannot have “burden of proof” in the scientific or philosophical sense because this is not a matter of theory or logic.
If changing the law to redefine a legal construct and social/religious institution so that it recognizes homosexual couples and grants them legal privileges is not a matter of theory or logic, and we therefore cannot apply standards of argumentation that exist in philosophy, science, or law, what exactly does that leave us? If it’s not a matter of any of those things, what exactly is it a matter of? By process of elimination, all you’ve left us with is feelings. Feelings are not a good reason to change millenia of religious and social tradition, and a couple centuries of legal precedent. Going any further in a discussion with someone who acknowledges that his position is indefensible by way of philosophy, theory, or logic is quite obviously pointless.
The argument isn’t about evidence, it’s about rights, and whether certain people should have them.
The Revolutionary War, slavery and women’s suffrage were all about rights and who should possess them as well. Fortunately for those causes, they had better defenders who were able and willing to use the power of logic and reason, within and outside of the legal system, to advance their ideas rather than simply castigate their opponents as ignorant or stupid and offer their feelings as proof of the claim.
Patrick, If you re-read and think about the section about ‘Procedural Rights’ in that “What Is Classical Liberalism” paper you pointed me to, it could be argued that Marriage Law in the US confer these types of rights. That is, once the State determined that “marriage” was a fundamental right of citizens, it was obligated to define a procedure for protecting this right – much like Mr. Goodman’s example of the State being required to facilitate Voting once the ‘right to choose a president and government representatives’ was determined.
Once the State sets up it’s mechanism to enforce these procedural rights, it is obligated to make these procedures available to all citizens.
In the case of California, this was especially relevant, as the State Constitution is specifically written to confer these types of civil procedural rights upon all citizens, with specific reference including all classes. That is why PropH8 had to specifically amend the State Constitution – in order to narrow the class eligible to receive this equal treatment under CA State law.
“Once the State sets up it’s mechanism to enforce these procedural rights, it is obligated to make these procedures available to all citizens.”
-Exactly.
“Feelings are not a good reason”
- Yeah, I can’t even imagine what feelings might have to do with marriage. Pardon the sarcasm, but really?
“they had better defenders who were able and willing to use the power of logic and reason”
- The proponents of Gay marriage have used logic and reason extensively. “feelings” are ironically the primary reason why people don’t want Gay marriage to be allowed.
That said, fine. Let’s play by your rules, pretend the case hasn’t already been made a thousand times, and I’ll start with the burden of “proof” (whatever that means here) on my side.
Reasons allowing Gay Marriage is a good idea:
1. More stable homes which can adopt orphan children.
2. Visitation Rights for homosexual men and women in hospitals.
3. Equality under Law for homosexual individuals.
4. Homosexual brain-drain. I have at least one friend leaving the state of Missouri to marry. An economist, student and businessman of the highest caliber. In all likelihood his taxes won’t be back.
5. Inheritance rights for homosexual couples and the children they raise.
Reasons allowing Gay Marriage would be harmful:
1. … ?
This is probably your cue, I can’t think of any.
(incidentally, if the state were to also term heterosexual marriages “civil unions” and just include all people under the same system of laws that way, that seems reasonable too. The issue isn’t really marriage at all, it’s equality under law for all citizens who wish their relationships to be recognized by the state.)
once the State determined that “marriage” was a fundamental right of citizens, it was obligated to define a procedure for protecting this right
I wasn’t aware that the state had determined that marriage was a “fundamental right of all citizens”. The fact that marriage is not offered to all citizens in any state of the union, nor granted or sanctioned by the federal government, is what threw me. Now that you’ve corrected this obvious misperception on my part, if marriage is a fundamental right to which the state is obligated to provide universal access, isn’t the licensing requirement and accompanying fee something akin to a discriminatory poll tax? Speaking of such things, I have a right to drive and operate a business, haven’t I? Is it fair that I am denied access to the right of driving and the right to make a living by astronomical fees, arbitrary age requirements and performance requirements? I think you’ve uncovered a potentially explosive constitutional issue here.
The proponents of Gay marriage have used logic and reason extensively.
But that doesn’t matter does it? As you said, marriage is not a matter of law, theory, logic, or philosophy. It’s a matter of feelings. And I demand equality for my feelings under the law. You can’t discriminate against my feelings. That’s not right. Unfortunately I can’t explain to you why it’s not right because that would require logic, philosophy, and maybe even a little theory, and that’s not what this is about.
Let’s play by your rules, pretend the case hasn’t already been made a thousand times
How could “the case” have been made? As you pointed out, this is not a trial, and it is not about law, or logic, or philosophy, or theory. There is no case, and even if there were, it could not be made. This is about rights. Rights divorced from the encumbrances of law, theory, logic, and philosophy.
The issue isn’t really marriage at all, it’s equality under law for all citizens who wish their relationships to be recognized by the state.
By process of elimination, homosexual marriage (“the issue”) isn’t about logic, theory, law, philosophy, or marriage. What it is about is A) feelings (because how can there be marriage without feelings? Even though marriage isn’t the issue) and B) Equality under the law (even though homosexual marriage is not about philosophy or the law).
For what it’s worth, leaving all logic, theory, philosophy and law aside – as we rightfully should – I sympathize with your position. I didn’t want to bring this up, but I, too, have seen the heartbreak of denying equal protection to loving American couples under the law of marriage. I have a very well educated friend, dual MBA/JD along with a doctorate in economics and an undergraduate background in French literature; a private financier who has literally been responsible for the creation of a minimum of thousands of jobs in his state. He is now being forced to flee from the state he has called home since boyhood because he is deeply and madly in love with a woman. Yes, that’s correct, a woman. Now this woman is also deeply and madly in love with my friend. But the state will not grant these two normal, healthy, reasonable adults the same legal protections and privileges – nay, the RIGHTS – offered to other heterosexual couples. Why? Well you see, this woman is also deeply and madly in love with another man – the one she’s married to; and secondly, this adoring couple lives in one of the 31 repressive, theocratic, knuckle-dragging states where marrying one’s first cousin is institutionally discriminated against. It’s a travesty, and I hope that someday these universal human rights will not only be restored to ALL citizens, but that backdoor routes to institutional discrimination, such as licensing and fee requirements, will go the way of the poll taxes that prevented black Americans from voting.
Gentlemen,
We covered this issue fairly extensicely in a series of posts to the essay The false Gospel of Liberalism http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/02/01/the-false-gospel-of-liberalism/comment-page-1/#comments
If you care, you may follow the link to read all 160 posts. A selected set of portions of these posts follows;
Bill Wavering February 14th 5:29 AM; “Now let’s look at marriage. Marriage is a privilege. There is no required certification program (although God knows there should be) and absolutely no criminal punishment or penalty for violating the contract. Support, visitation, the division of assets and other such things are imposed by civil courts during a divorce proceeding. But none of these are codified in law. There’s absolutely nothing anywhere that says violation of the contract to “Honor, Love, Cherish and Obey until death do you part” results in fines, incarceration, restriction, or revocation of exercising your privilege once again. Marriage is a privilege granted by the state, not a ‘right’.”
Raymond Engles February 15th 12:47 PM; ” Mr. Wavering – you write, Marriage is a privilege granted by the state, not a ‘right’. Assuming that’s correct, there’s still a few issues we might want to discuss sometime. For example, should the state be involved in granting such privileges, and on what basis? Or, e.g., is restricting it to “one man and one woman” an example of what Mr. Roebuck terms “unjust discrimination”?”
Phillip Ellis Jackson February 15th #:39 PM “As long as we’re going to arbitrarily re-define privileges as “rights”, why not let marriage be between three men and five women, one of whom is 11 years old (after all, why should age matter?) And what about animal “rights” too? Make that three men, five women, and Fido. Why not arbitrarily define this as “marriage”? To deny Fido connubial bliss is clearly discrimination, as it would be to limit the number of marriage partners (why not one man and 50 women?), or set an arbitrary age cut off to marry [if 16 is legal, why not 15 years and 364 days, 363 days, 362 days, etc.]?… The answer, of course, is found in the Constitution which permits or restricts certain actions, as well as provides the overall framework within which all this takes place. This, coupled with common law (and common sense), defines how we act as a nation of laws.
Those who want to challenge the status quo have the onus of showing how/why an issue is wrong, and thus deserves to be changed.”
Bill Wavering February 15th 4:11 PM ” For my money, no the state should be involved in granting such privileges. Personally I believe that furthest the ‘state’ may go is to grant a ‘civil union’. That may be between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a man and a goat…; well you get the idea. My marriage is granted by the Catholic Church, and as such is between my wife, a woman of noble bearing I might add, and myself.
I don’t personally think the state has the power to grant what is clearly a joining of religious stature. Civil unions are good enough to be recognized by these same states when it comes to property dissolution during the cancelling of the contract, enough to set precedent for inheritance, the granting of benefits (pension or health). In short the entire gamut of civil rights may be solved with the granting of civil unions. The state, in my opinion, ‘borrowed’ the term marriage.”
A Civil Union is the only thing a government should have the ability to offer. The government ‘borrowed’ the term ‘marriage’ from previously established religious theologies. In the government sense, it is a misnomer and should not be used.
Response to the Response to (1) and (2)
The discussion of any so-called ‘Right’ to civil marriage is not productive.
On the other hand, ALL law-abiding adults have an absolute, uncompromised right to equal treatment before the law compared to other law-abiding adults similarly situated.
When we are invited to stand and recite the Pledge to our flag, for example, at the beginning of a civic meeting, we say, “. . .with liberty and justice for all.” We do not say, “with liberty and justice only for the people who are just like me.” (I’m surprised that the religionist bigots in the Utah State Churchislature haven’t proposed that change yet.)
Same-gender couples are deemed “similarly situated” to infertile different-gender couples. Same-gender couples have an absolute, uncompromised right to every secular benefit, protection, or responsibility granted by the government to infertile different-gender couples.
Judges and lawyers need specific terminology like “suspect class” and various levels of “scrutiny.” The rest of us just need a little common sense.
Families come in different shapes, sizes, and compositions. Some families include children; some do not. Children may live with both genetic parents, one genetic parent (with or without a step-parent), or with one or two adults with whom they have no genetic relationship. LGBTQ individuals in similar family relationships have an absolute, uncompromised right to the secular, government-granted benefits and protections available to their “straight” counterparts.
Individuals are welcome to whatever opinion they may have concerning a ‘Right’ to marriage. On the other hand, the Right to equal treatment is not open to debate. Prejudice and discrimination have no place in American society. We have no second-class citizens. Any attempt to deny equal protection to any minority based on any arbitrary characteristic is unethical and contrary to the principles of liberty and equality on which our secular, constitutional republic was founded.
David
Sandy UT
David,
So you support the right for 12 year olds to marry?
“Families come in different shapes, sizes, and compositions.” So how about the right for 4 men and three women to marry? Do you support their legal rights?
Response to the Response to (4)
One definition of the word ‘discriminate’ means to select based on logical, rational characteristics. When creating laws concerning who may drive a motor vehicle we discriminate (i.e., select) based on the ability to see. All intelligent adults recognize the danger of giving a driver’s license to individuals who are blind or who have exceptionally poor vision.
When we use the term ‘discrimination’ in this context, we are talking about choices based on logical, rational differences in abilities that are related directly to the issue at hand.
The word ‘discrimination’ also means a behavior based on prejudice rather than logical, rational differences. The racial purity laws of the Old Segregationist South were based on prejudice concerning skin color.
Except for a few slime-sucking racist bigots, intelligent adults now recognize that prejudice concerning skin color is illogical, irrational, unethical, and morally wrong.
With regard to marriage equality, discrimination (in the context of selection based on rational differences) based on age (no children), species (no dogs), or cosanguinity (no siblings, etc.) is considered appropriate. Discrimination in the context of irrational prejudice is not appropriate. Discrimination in the context of irrational prejudice is unethical and morally wrong.
The author plays word games with ‘discrimination’ but fails to provide any logical, rational argument to justify the ‘discrimination’ (in either context) of anti-equality marrige practices.
In my never-humble opinion, the author has no credibility for his argument as he fails to address the real issues of anti-equality prejudice and irrational discrimination.
David
Sandy UT
Mountain Man asked:
“So you support the right for 12 year olds to marry?”
“‘Families come in different shapes, sizes, and compositions.’ So how about the right for 4 men and three women to marry? Do you support their legal rights?”
Do you understand written English?
I wrote:
LGBTQ individuals in similar family relationships have an absolute, uncompromised right to the secular, government-granted benefits and protections available to their “straight” counterparts.
Does any state currently grant the secular benefits and protections of a ‘marriage’ to an adult and a 12 year old child? Or to four men and three women (or any combination of men or women where the total is greater than two)?
Here in Utardia—The Pretty Hate State (a.k.a. Utah), the Utah State Code, Title 30, Chapter 1, prohibits any individuals age 14 or younger from being married. Regardless of the precident of Joseph Smith’s and Brigham Young’s plural marriages (including marriages to young girls), Utah law prohibits legal marriage in any combination of more than one man and one woman.
Marriage to children is not a secular benefit granted by our government to “straight” individuals. Only an extremely stooopid person would suggest that LGBTQ individuals want something different.
Marriage to multiple individuals (or trees, rocks, farm animals, etc.) is not a secular benefit granted by our government to “straight” individuals. Only an extremely stooopid person would suggest that LGBTQ individuals want something different.
I have no reason to believe that Mountain Man is stooopid. So why did he ask such stooopid questions?
David
Sandy UT
David from Sandy Utah,
First of all let’s address your statement; “…ALL law-abiding adults have an absolute, uncompromised right to equal treatment before the law compared to other law-abiding adults similarly situated.” I am a Roman Catholic, and as such subscribe to the dogma that all life from conception to natural death must be respected. How does Roe vs. Wade in SCOTUS and federally funded abortion as written in health carte legislation guarantee my right to equal treatment under the law? The short answer is that is doesn’t; and we know it doesn’t. Anything else is angels ‘jigging’ on the head of a pin.
Which is exactly why the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and into the ‘civil union’ business. It is indisputable that there was a religious connotation to marriage long before there was ever any ‘government’ connotation to the term. You may have to go all the way back to Mesopotamia to find it, but find it you will. That brings us both to the real reason that gays desire a ‘union’ that must be called marriage.
The balance of my February 15th 4:11 PM Post @ The Failed Gospel of Liberalism – “I don’t personally think the state has the power to grant what is clearly a joining of religious stature. Civil unions are good enough to be recognized by these same states when it comes to property dissolution during the cancelling of the contract, enough to set precedent for inheritance, the granting of benefits (pension or health). In short the entire gamut of civil rights may be solved with the granting of civil unions. The state, in my opinion, ‘borrowed’ the term marriage. However, the sanctity of marriage has definite religious connotations.
Oddly enough, this is exactly why civil unions aren’t good enough for gays. They want that ‘sanctity’. Do you understand? They cannot believe that something that feels, on every level, to be so correct for them, can possibly have any negative consequences. They believe that the process of pronouncing their specific ‘union’ choice as correct requires it be called marriage. This is a core argument. If religious persons are prohibited from denouncing their ‘joining’ and the state grants their ‘joining’ the same stature as [religious] marriage, then there can be no more question regarding their choice as being [absolutely] ‘correct’.
What they believe they pursue is acceptance. What they desire is something we may not give; absolution. Judgment is reserved for the Creator alone. All 6.4 billion people on the planet could agree that homosexual unions are the most normal, highly evolved, and sought after conditions on the planet. That will mean nothing when they face God. I don’t know God’s mind; do you? I cannot condemn a person, I have no right. I have enough on my plate trying NOT to condemn myself, as do we all.
I care not if the couple is named Adam & Eve or Adam & Steve. It’s really none of my business. And, as I said before, I’ve enough to worry about worrying about me. If I do not own the right to condemn, then I also do not own the right to absolve. That’s the core of their issue. By the time they meet their Maker, they will be long past the opportunity for a change in behavior. They must stand with the choice and accept the consequences whatever they may be. This is the source of their ‘discomfort’, if you will. They must gain absolution, and no one here may grant that.”
This is the entire debate in a nutshell. All seven of the ‘arguments’ put forth by Jack Kerwick are smoke and mirrors. Gays don’t care for rights; and here’s why. You want to find out how committed any being is to a value, observe how he/she enacts that value regarding those that disagree with him/her. If tolerance goes out the window as soon as disagreement enters, then one can reasonably assume that that specific person’s claims to adherence to a value is false. Since gays are unusually prone to shouting down, slapping down, and shutting down any and all opposition; respect for rights doesn’t seem to be at the top of their agenda; which would cause one to reasonably assume that their ‘announcement’ regarding their demand that their ‘rights’ be granted is decidedly suspect.
Since marriage was long ago named a religious privilege, there are no attendant ‘rights’ that can ever be attached to the term. Since government ‘marriage’ is in actuality a misnomer, there can be no rights attached to this ‘misidentified’ term it as well. That leaves you with only civil union. Now I understand that for reasons outlined above that civil unions will never give you what you desire; but neither would calling it ‘marriage’.
You could call it whatever you like and absolution still will not follow. If you truly weren’t seeking absolution, then whatever anyone else said regarding your ‘union’ would not affect you in the least. As long as you were happy, and the civil agreement that you had made allowed for all the protections of law for benefit, inheritance, taxes, etc. you wouldn’t ‘give a flip’ whatever government actually ‘named’ your situation. So, given that civil unions provide all the same constitutional protections; why does it have to be ‘marriage’, and nothing less?
As I stated earlier; the entire planet could celebrate your union as the most desired form of ‘joining’ on the planet, won’t help with Judgment. You and I have no authority to influence that decision one way or the other, except behaviorally. So, no matter what you call it, no matter if you go to the court house or find an agreeable church or participate in some pagan ritual in order to give your relationship sanction; your personal feelings on the matter are going to be meaningless in the face of the Creator. Will he condone your choice? I don’t know and I’m not qualified to judge. Only you can choose. Only He can Judge.
Patrick, I think you’re philosophizing a bit too much on the nature of ‘fundamental’ rights. I mean, I’ve never seen anyone enumerate what, exactly, those rights might be except “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” That includes a lot of things, ‘marriage’ could certainly be argued to be among them.
But not matter, let’s just review a little history:
In the ‘beginning,’ marriage was a Church thing. But once the Colonies and the the United States got up and running, the State started registering marriages (I don’t know the exact history or reason). Back then, no body thought of limiting marriage to just men and women.
Then, over the course of the next 200+ years, State (civil) marriage started to become it’s own class, far more important and financially beneficial than Church marriage: Tax benefits, survivor benefits, co-insurance benefits, shared property rights, etc, etc.
This class of benefits became so distinct, that it actually discriminates against atheists who have no use for the religious concept of marriage – people like me: heterosexual, in a long-term relationship, who feel no need to have his relationship blessed by God, is still put under enormous pressure to marry (civilly) in order to take advantage of this ‘special class’ that the State bestows.
Again, as much as you guys like to make the distinction between ‘rights’ (of which you only like the enumerated ones, and forget the open ended ones, like “Happiness”), and ‘privileges.’ But a privilege is just a right that has been lawyer-ed into civilization. Exactly like the concept of ‘procedural rights:’ once a right is acknowledged, if it can cause damage to society if used recklessly (like driving), it becomes a licensed activity, so citizens can prove they understand the laws and regulations. Most States must give you a license if you can read the eyechart and pass the tests – and they can’t revoke it unless you break the laws.
Back to marriage. Everything was proceeding according to plan when some gay couples in committed relationships noticed the same thing that atheist couples had known about (and taken advantage of, despite the whole ‘not believing in God or going to church thing’) for years, namely, all those civil marriage laws and the creation – by the State, not the Church – of a whole benefited class of people.
So one day, a couple marched into a Registrars office, and asked to be allowed into this benefited and wholly State-created class. And the Registrar said “No, the form says ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ you are both wives.”
And the couple said, “We had our lawyers look into this, actually, and it turns out there aren’t any laws that say we can’t get married. The only reason it says ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ there is because that’s what’s written on the form. Some printer made that decision.”
And the Registrar said, “Er…”
Or in the case of California, “OK.”
That’s the moment the cultural conservatives in this country went bats**t: when they realized they hadn’t been sufficiently discriminatory in the past. So they literally rushed to create law and amend State Constitutions (by definition, “making the Government bigger”) to actively discriminate against same-gender couples. This is blatantly unfair and discriminatory under law: it is not ‘equal protection.’
Now, as much as I’d love to predict that this will end with gays, this is America – someone eventually will try that slopey slide. Will Patrick’s friend try and marry his cousin while still married to his current wife? Who knows. Perhaps marriage, as a civil protected class should just be abolished – no more child tax credits, no property rights or death benefits for spouses, no co-insurance benefits or hospital visitation for wives and husbands of any sexual orientation.
That would be shrinking Government out of our lives quite a bit, and that’s what you conservatives want, amirite?
Bill – “I am a Roman Catholic, and as such subscribe to the dogma that all life from conception to natural death must be respected. How does Roe vs. Wade in SCOTUS and federally funded abortion as written in health carte legislation guarantee my right to equal treatment under the law?”
Well, you’re hijacking the thread a bit there, buddy. But I also didn’t realize you were a pre-3rd trimester fetus.
Oh, you’re not? You’re a full grown man? Then how, exactly are *your* fundamental rights affected by Roe?
Don’t tell me your tax dollars go to them, my tax dollars go to all sorts of things I find immoral and repulsive, like torture and war, and the government pretty much tells me to f*** off on that objection. Having a say as to how your taxes are used is not a right, so how are you affected? Same goes to gay marriage – in fact answering that question is more germane to this thread.
The problem with your ‘Civil Unions’ argument, is that we tried it here in California and, first, it’s really hard to duplicate every single benefit of ‘marriage’ without just writing a law that says “henceforth, all State marriages will be known, by the State, as ‘Civil Unions’ and all rights and benefits previously belonging to marriage, are now assumed by ‘civil union.” Or something like that.
At which point the conservatives go bats**t again. Probably.
Chasm,
Hello again,
Remember we had this conversation before. Words mean things. We strive to be precise. I feel I must take umbrage with your statement; “…conservatives in this country went bats**t: when they realized they hadn’t been sufficiently discriminatory in the past.” First of all, the statement is absolutely correct, but you don’t know why. See; it’s only recently that the word ‘discriminatory’ has carried the pejorative connotation you ascribe to it.
The definition of the word discriminatory, for decades meant; “the showing of or indication of careful judgment and discernment especially in matters of taste; as in ‘the discriminating eye of the connoisseur’.
It is only since the progressives have really been involved in the stretching and reassigning of definitions of words to favor their particular agenda that discrimination has taken on the ‘negative’ definition of prejudice. So actually your statement should have said; “”…conservatives in this country went bats**t: when they realized they hadn’t been sufficiently ‘prejudiced’ in the past.” But that statement would have been incorrect.
There’s no conservative that wants to intentionally discriminate against anyone. Some of the 20% on the kool-aid drinking right any, but not any true conservative. Remember there’s a 20% on the kool-aid drinking right just as there’s a 20% on the kool-aid drinking left. I call those right wing kool-aid drinkers supremacists and the ones on the left I call progressives.
Chasm,
I was responding to David from Sandy Utah and his comment that ALL law-abiding adults have an absolute, uncompromised right to equal treatment before the law compared to other law-abiding adults similarly situated.
said; ”
He said nothing about “a pre-3rd trimester fetus.” relaay, do try and keep up.
Included in a comment above:
Bill Wavering February 15th 4:11 PM “For my money, no the state should be involved in granting such privileges. Personally I believe that furthest the ‘state’ may go is to grant a ‘civil union’.”
I have no problem with the concept that state government should get out of the ‘marriage’ business. This option may be acceptable to some individuals but may be unnecessarily complex and too extreme a change for others.
The simple and universally acceptable solution is to recognize that common English language words often have multiple meanings.
Very young children often are confused by different meanings but quickly learn to interpret meaning based on the content in which a word is used.
If Mom says, “I need to run to the store,” a very young child might bring Mom her jogging shoes. An older child probably would bring Mom her car keys.
Some individuals feel strongly that the word ‘marriage’ is associated with deeply significant religious beliefs. These individuals are welcome to their personal opinions and their religious beliefs so long as they do not hurt other people. No religious belief, regardless of how strongly it may be felt, justifies hurting other people.
Regardless of how strongly people want to associate the word ‘marriage’ with a religious belief, the word ‘marriage’ also is used in our laws and regulations to describe a specific set of secular, government-granted benefits and protections.
In the past, there may have been some connection between religious beliefs and secular laws. Welcome to the Twenty-First Century. Modern marriage laws and regulations are completely and irreversibly separated from religious beliefs.
Do individuals go to a religious leader to obtain a driver’s license? No. They go to a government office. A driver’s license is a completely secular benefit of citizenship.
Do individuals go to a religious leader to obtain a marriage certificate? No. They go to a government office. A government-issued marriage certificate is a completely secular benefit of citizenship.
As stated above, individuals are welcome to their personal beliefs about religious aspects of marriage. The secular benefits of a government-issued marriage certificate given to a deeply religious individual are exactly the same as those given to an individual with no particular religious belief.
Religious individuals who refuse to acknowledge the reality of multiple meanings for the common English-language word ‘marriage’ have created the current environment of prejudice and discrimination.
Here is the ugly reality: Not everyone believes that the word ‘marriage’ should have one and only one definition. Most of us are smarter than a fifth grader and have no problem understaning the difference between religious beliefs concerning ‘marriage’ and the secular, government-granted, legal benefits and protections associated with that same word.
David
Sandy UT
Ooops, there is an open HTML tag in the previous post. Would someone please edit the comment to close the tag?
Thanks,
David
David from Sandy Utah,
This is exactly why I believe the government needs to be out of the marriage business. It has nothing to do with educational levels or relative intelligence. This entire conversation has everything to do with precision in regards to terms.
You say; “Here is the ugly reality: Not everyone believes that the word ‘marriage’ should have one and only one definition. Most of us are smarter than a fifth grader and have no problem understaning the difference between religious beliefs concerning ‘marriage’ and the secular, government-granted, legal benefits and protections associated with that same word.”
But there is a world of difference. I’ll use my marriage as an example. I’m a cradle Catholic, my wife is non-denominational. If we’d simply gone to the courthouse there would have been a question regarding did we get blood tests? Upon production of the test certificate and our driver’s licenses showing we were both above the age of majority we would have produced the proper fee and the next thing we’d have heard was; “By the power vested in me by the state; I now pronounce you man and wife. Next!”
As it was; when we got engaged and I went to my pastor to schedule what we thought would be a July wedding, I found that if I wanted a church ceremony, we would have to first undergo a series of interview sessions. Only after the pastor was convinced that we not only understood the depth of commitment to each other, but was assured that my wife understood the depth of both my and her commitment in the eyes of both the Church and God could the ceremony be conducted. To make a long story short; a wedding planned for July occurred in late January of the following year.
The points brought up during these ‘conferences’ not only had us exploring the entire experience from the church perspective, but also caused us to have a series of detailed, frank conversations with each other. We both found, and still agree, that this process was something we’d have not gone through otherwise. We also agree that this process revealed the true nature of the responsibilities of the promises we were about to make to each other. A process, I might add, that helped us to get through some rough spots over the last twenty plus years.
I cannot speak for other faiths, but there certainly isn’t any type of counseling program available for government marriage.
So; actually it DOES take someone decidedly ‘smarter’ that a fifth grader to understand the complexities of a true marriage. Now if all you want is the ability to root around with each other until you lose interest, then fifth grade is probably about right.
“the Utah State Code, Title 30, Chapter 1, prohibits any individuals age 14 or younger from being married.”
I guess I’m just too stooopid for the brilliant David from Sandy, Utah, but we are talking about legal status here, aren’t we? It used to be illegal to be gay, in many places it is illegal for gays to marry. And you are advocating a change in the law to allow gays to marry. So on what basis do accept that gays should marry, but not other classes of relationships also excluded by current law.
And, sir, you would do well to maintain civil discourse here. Ad hominem is the last refuge of a limited mind.
Bill Wavering wrote (February 22nd, 2010 at 11:52 am)
“I am a Roman Catholic, and as such subscribe to the dogma that all life from conception to natural death must be respected.”
You are welcome to your religious belief so long as you do no harm to other people.
Your religious belief should in no way prevent others from seeking their own form of happiness.
You may have strong feelings or strong religious beliefs concerning abortion, but the point of Roe v. Wade is that the decisions of other individuals are basically none of your business.
What part of The Golden Rule do you NOT understand?
Do you want the government to be involved in every deeply personal decision you make concerning your personal health and happiness? No? Then do not presume that the government should impose your choices on other people.
You have the Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You do not have a Right to make choices for other people where there is a legitimate difference of opinion. In other words, just because you believe something to be wrong does not make it wrong for everyone.
I am not a religious individual, but I find depictions of torture and excruciatingly painful death to be deeply offensive. Catholic churches often display images, statues, or other representations of the torture and execution of our fellow human beings. Should I initiate an amendment to our state constitution prohibiting (regardless of the circumstances) the depiction of human torture? I’ll bet that many individuals think that depictions of torture and execution are highly offensive, especially when displayed for young children. Maybe I can get the Locally Dominant Sect here in Utardia to donate millions of dollars and uncounted hours of volunteer time based on the belief that children should not be exposed to horrific depictions of torture and excruciatingly painful execution.
At what point do you say, “David, that’s none of your business.”
Our laws are based on a foundation of ethical behavior. Homicide and murder are illegal because of a widely held belief that no individual or non-governmental group has the right to decide which individuals should live or die. We do not punish a murdered because of a religious belief that “Thou shalt not kill.” Murder is a crime because our secular, constitutional republic demands that every individual will have an uncompromised right to their own form of happiness so long as they do not hurt others.
David
Sandy UT
LGBTQ individuals in similar family relationships have an absolute, uncompromised right to the secular, government-granted benefits and protections available to their “straight” counterparts… Individuals are welcome to whatever opinion they may have concerning a ‘Right’ to marriage. On the other hand, the Right to equal treatment is not open to debate.
No, actually, they don’t. Heterosexual families and couples don’t either –which is why millions of minors, first cousins, siblings, polygamists, people who cannot afford the licensing fee, privacy advocates who do not want their relationship to become part of the public record, and others who do not qualify must live in the same shame and secrecy as homosexual/gay/queer/lesbian/transsexual/transgender/transmogrified/bisexual/e-sexual/asexual people do. You are welcome to whatever opinion you may have concerning a “right” to marriage, but your opinion means as little as anyone else’s and does not define the terms of any debate, legal, philosophical, or otherwise. Feeling passionately about a position does not make that position an objective fact. The fact is that there are many people, of all skin colors, ages, and sexual persuasions, who are denied the right to enter into a marriage contract. Equal protection means that the government has an obligation to treat all marriage contracts that it issues in the same manner before a court – not that it must issue a marriage license to anyone who asks for it (anymore than it must issue a liquor license, or drivers license, or certificate of incorporation to anyone who asks for them).
once a right is acknowledged, if it can cause damage to society if used recklessly (like driving), it becomes a licensed activity
Something that is licensed to you is not a right – it is a privilege. An actual right becomes a privilege the moment that the government steals it from you and beings charging you for the ability to exercise it. If the absence of a legal definition of marriage constituted a universal “right” to it, that right was supplanted with a privilege the moment a state legislature passed a narrow definition of who may or may not enter into a marriage contract and the federal government began recognizing state marriages in its tax structure. In a similar manner, the “right” to drive a vehicle became a privilege the moment a state legislature passed a law stating that only people over the age of 16 with adequate vision who pay a recurring use tax may drive on its public roads.
Perhaps marriage, as a civil protected class should just be abolished – no more child tax credits, no property rights or death benefits for spouses, no co-insurance benefits or hospital visitation for wives and husbands of any sexual orientation… That would be shrinking Government out of our lives quite a bit, and that’s what you conservatives want, amirite?
Correct – that is precisely what I would like. The government should not be in the business of encouraging or supporting anyone’s private relationships by granting exclusive privileges to them. “Marriage” should be an institution one enters into privately before a church or other social group for no benefit besides whatever intrinsic value he ascribes to the concept. If a living will isn’t a good enough security blanket for you, draft a legal contract of your own choosing and language for the court to enforce. That’s more of a libertarian position than a conservative one, so you are liable to encounter disagreement.
Well, you’re hijacking the thread a bit there, buddy. But I also didn’t realize you were a pre-3rd trimester fetus… Oh, you’re not? You’re a full grown man? Then how, exactly are *your* fundamental rights affected by Roe?
Well, let’s think up a scenario that could never possibly happen – totally out in left field. Let’s say Bill’s wife gets pregnant. She decides she doesn’t want the child and has an abortion. Despite the fetus possessing half of Bill’s genetic material, he gets no say at all in the decision, even though he believes abortion is morally repugnant and infringes on the rights of a less-developed human being. Ah, I guess you’re right – what would that have to do with Bill and his so-called “rights”.
In other words, just because you believe something to be wrong does not make it wrong for everyone.
And yet we have learned through the course of this discussion that “rights”, like the right be married, are not about logic, theory, law or philosophy. Which means that we are to be governed by our feelings (our “beliefs”). So how are we to decide which of two beliefs or feelings is superior if or when they come into conflict? Why, we can’t. That would require logic, theory, philosophy, and a set of laws based on them. So in the same way that Bill’s feelings and beliefs do not apply to everyone, your feelings and beliefs do not either. We are left at a quandary.
David from Sandy Utah,
I’m not requiring that my choices be imposed on others. Regarding Roe; I’ve always been of the opinion that it should have been a ‘states rights’ issue. Once the federal government steps in and declares a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution, then they violate my rights. We’ve known that since the first state passed abortion legislation that such a procedure was never going to disappear. Some states would have been very liberal, all the way to public funding. Others would have been restrictive. People could have voted their conscious with their feet. Now there is no choice for me. I am forced to agree with the federal government position no matter what. What about my right? Conception means something. Conception is Life. Is that meaningless?
As for the government being involved in ‘personal’ decisions affecting my health and happiness, they do it all the time and Roe is only one example. Should I take the administration’s point of view and if I hold a ‘respect for life’ philosophy, then I shouldn’t seek employment in a hospital? How about a drug store where contraceptives are sold? A clinic where they pass out condoms? How many employment opportunities am I to pass up because of a personal belief? What if I’m a pharmacist? Is it restrictive to my right to pursue the happiness of continued employment?
What a church decides to hang or not hang within the confines of the church isn’t anyone’s business. It’s not like they are displaying these images offensive to you outside in the parking lot. You don’t want to see Christ crucified, don’t go into the church. That shouldn’t be too difficult for you to avoid, huh? Your ability to object would extend to public displays of such images only.
As for your statement; “We do not punish a murdered because of a religious belief that “Thou shalt not kill.” We most certainly do. Both in Exodus 20: 2-17 and in Deuteronomy 5: 6-21 the commandment is literally translated as “You shall not murder.” That only took a quick Google search. You really must get in the habit of doing at least a modicum of research before engaging that keyboard of yours; otherwise you take the chance of, sometime, typing something you’ll really wish you hadn’t.
Most laws had a basis in religious philosophy long before there was a civil philosophy. I thought we covered all that back during the ‘definition’ portion of the marriage debate. Religion was both prohibiting murder and promoting marriage long before government got involved in either issue. At least try to keep up.
Bill wrote:
“I care not if the couple is named Adam & Eve or Adam & Steve. It’s really none of my business. And, as I said before, I’ve enough to worry about worrying about me. If I do not own the right to condemn, then I also do not own the right to absolve.”
You are correct.
Unfortunately, the idea of religious acceptance, absolution, or social acceptance is an issue ONLY for the anti-equality religionists. As I understand the issue, the vast majority of members of the LGBTQ community do not give a flying rat copulation about religious or social acceptance, they only want secular equality and the same secular, government-granted benefits enjoyed by “first class” citizens.
Religionists have made a big fluffy deal about secular equality and so-called acceptance of homosexuality. Religionists are welcome to their beliefs so long as they do no harm to other people. Religionists are welcome to go down to their club houses and preach hell fire and damnation concerning homosexuality, sabbath breaking, idol worship, dancing, rock music, the consumption of pork, shellfish, red meat, chocolate, or broccoli (especially in the days before Easter), wearing cotton and polyester in the same garment, or whatever—I do not care. However, to use any one of those beliefs to hurt other people is unethical and grievously morally wrong.
Here is an extreme example.
I strongly condemn the horse-excrement hate-spew from members of racist hate groups. Should we strip these individuals of their First Amendment freedoms? Hell, no. These individuals have the same rights to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly that you or I do. Does the acknowledgement of these individual’s constitutional rights mean that any of us accept or endorse their hate-mongering philosophy? Hell, no. No intelligent individual would assume that acknowledgement of constitutional rights is in any way connected to acceptance or endorsement of any particular philosophy or belief when expressed as constitutionally protected speech.
David
Sandy UT
David from Snady Utah,
You say; “Unfortunately, the idea of religious acceptance, absolution, or social acceptance is an issue ONLY for the anti-equality religionists. As I understand the issue, the vast majority of members of the LGBTQ community do not give a flying rat copulation about religious or social acceptance, they only want secular equality and the same secular, government-granted benefits enjoyed by “first class” citizens.
Then why the beef with civil unions? If civil unions give couples all the legal protections they desire, then why arent’ they good enough?. What’s in a name? Apparently; there IS something else they desire.
Mountain Man
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:09 pm
“And, sir, you would do well to maintain civil discourse here. Ad hominem is the last refuge of a limited mind.”
So says the person who asked the stooopid, inflammatory, slippery-slope questions in the first place.
If you want to be treated with respect, do not repeat the fear-mongering nonsense of religionist bigots. If you introduce illogical horse-excrement into the conversation, you can kiss civility good bye.
Patience is a virtue, which is why I have none.
David
Sandy UT
I strongly condemn the horse-excrement hate-spew from members of racist hate groups. Should we strip these individuals of their First Amendment freedoms? Hell, no. These individuals have the same rights to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly that you or I do.
Does that mean that, under the auspices of equal protection, a city government is obligated to grant a parade permit to a Neo-Nazi group and allow them access to public roadways in a busy downtown shopping district so that they can vocally promote a message of violence? Hell yes! Because the government cannot discriminate. Right?
So says the person who asked the stooopid, inflammatory, slippery-slope questions in the first place.
Asking a question that you disagree with is not an ad hominem attack. If you’re in possession of a dictionary, you would do well to consult it every so often.
Patience is a virtue, which is why I have none.
Same thing happened with intelligence, I take it?
Mr. Wavering –
Because of the historical issues with ‘separate but equal’. Which, sadly, aren’t all that historical.
Another way that the state getting out of the marriage business entirely would clarify things.
To reiterate what I just wrote on the other thread, but put more relevantly for this one, Bill and others:
At the time that the Church (Catholic, or otherwise) codified a set of rules and responsibilities regarding marriage – requiring Bill and his wife-to-be to take marriage counseling and advice from a sworn celibate, for example – the Church effectively was the law in many parts of Europe. Following the Church’s edicts on marriage and family was de facto a citizen requirement in many, if not most, places.
So, trying to overlay the morals of a prior government (the Church’s) onto the Constitution, via a really rather dubious connect-the-dots-with-the-DOI-and-look!-our-Forfathers-were-Christians!-HA! argument is at best a violation of the separation of Church and State, is at least contrary to Jefferson’s notion that we should not be bound by the laws of prior generations, and at worst a violation of my right to shack-up with whoever I want, regardless of the physical make-up of their reproductive organs.
Patrick Mulligan wrote (February 22nd, 2010 at 1:28 pm)
“Heterosexual families and couples don’t either—which is why millions of minors, first cousins, siblings, polygamists. . .”
Two law-abiding adults are not similarly situated to an adult and a child. A child cannot enter into a legally binding contract. One can safely assume that the legally binding responsibilities of ‘marriage’ are not an appropriate option for children.
Close blood relatives are not allowed to marry based on the increased probability that children of that union may have a genetic disease. The Utah State Code allows exceptions for first cousins based on age and infertility of one of the two individuals.
Here in Utardia—The Pretty Hate State (a.k.a. Utah), polygamy is an especially interesting subject. Members of the Locally Dominant Sect (a.k.a. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) openly practiced plural marriage and suspended the practice (but did not repudiate the religious doctrine) only when forced to do so by the federal government. In my never-humble opinion, polygamy is a non-issue. If and when (which is to say, probably never) FLDS and similar polygamist groups seek legal recognition of their three-or-more-adult marriages we can discuss the social and legal quagmire of that specific issue.
Members of a rational and compassionate society can agree that ‘marriage’ involving children, trees, rocks, farm animals, etc. should not receive legal recognition based on simple concepts of contractual relationships between law-abiding adults.
In the Old Segregationist South, interracial marriage was prohibited because of prejudice, a narrow-minded interpretation of scripture and specific religious belief concerning the “separation of the races” and an immoral pseudo-scientific, irrational philosophy called eugenics, specifically that intermarriage of the “dark and loathsome” races with the “white and delightsome” race (ask a Mormon about the significance of those specific terms) would harm the superior, white race.
Today, we would call all of those reasons to prevent interracial marriage a stinking pile of racist bigotry.
Can you see where we are headed?
What secular justification can you give to deny secular equality to all law-abiding adults?
Please don’t bother to thump your scriptures; no one wants your narrow-minded religious beliefs shoved down the collective throats of society as a whole (just as you would not want some other narrow-minded religious belief shoved down your throat).
Please don’t bother bringing up children. Neither the ability nor the intent to have children is a requirement for a secular, government-issued marriage certificate.
Please don’t bring up tradition. Slavery was a long-standing tradition. The treatement of women and children as personal property was a long-standing tradition. Traditions change, often for very good reasons.
So what is left?
What justification do you have for denying secular equality to law-abiding adults who want the secular, government-granted benefits and protections offered to the majority of citizens?
What justification do you have for making members of the LGBTQ community second-class citizens?
David
Sandy UT
“So says the person who asked the stooopid, inflammatory, slippery-slope questions in the first place.
If you want to be treated with respect, do not repeat the fear-mongering nonsense of religionist bigots. If you introduce illogical horse-excrement into the conversation, you can kiss civility good bye.”
Listen, you hate-filled little man. I asked a serious question, I expect an answer. We are talking about legal status. The arguments you employ work equally well for every conceivable combination of people and their various preferences.
Feel free to gin up your moral outrage if you need to create a diversion, but the question still remains. Grow up a little and try to act like an adult.
And by the way, you know nothing about my religion or lack of same. If that’s the best you can do, you do indeed have a small mind.
Lastly, do not threaten me. I do not take well to blow-hards and pompous boors.
Bill wrote
“. . .then I shouldn’t seek employment in a hospital? How about a drug store where contraceptives are sold? A clinic where they pass out condoms? How many employment opportunities am I to pass up because of a personal belief?”
You are welcome to your belief, and you are welcome to any personal choices you make based on your belief so long as you do not hurt other people.
The only person limiting your opportunity is you.
I used to live in northern Indiana and have have a great deal of respect for the Amish. These individuals choose not to use automobiles, tractors, electical appliances, etc. They do not condem as “sinners” those not of their faith who use such modern conveniences.
The Amish do not whine about limitations. They joyfully embrace their differences.
If you do not want to have a same-gender relationship, fine, do not do so. Feel free to teach your children to avoid same-gender relationships (but also, do NOT teach them to be slime-sucking bigots with regard to their law-abiding peers).
On the other hand, why do you deny your neighbor the secular benefits and protections of a government-issued piece of paper? Can you give solid, irrefutable, logical, rational evidence that secular equality will hurt society in some way?
So far, none of the religionist bigots here in Utardia have given a reason that doesn’t boil down to, “Because the prophet said so.” (Here in Utardia, the Locally Dominant Sect have a favorite saying, “When our leaders have spoken, the thinking has been done.”—This statement actually was published in The Improvement Era by the Office of the Presiding Bishop a number of years ago.)
Assuming you are more intelligent than all of the LDS leaders and politically active LDS sheep combined, what justification do you have for making members of the LGBTQ community second-class citizens?
David
Somewhere South of Salt Lake City :-)
Close blood relatives are not allowed to marry based on the increased probability that children of that union may have a genetic disease.
Why is that a justification for denying two consenting adult people the same legal privileges as heterosexual non-related couples? I thought children and procreation were not an issue? This is about equality!
Members of a rational and compassionate society can agree that ‘marriage’ involving children, trees, rocks, farm animals, etc. should not receive legal recognition based on simple concepts of contractual relationships between law-abiding adults.
Which is why I only mentioned human relationships, and primarily adult ones. Besides, consensus does not equal morality, does it? If that were the case, then the majority of voters in California who passed a referendum to amend their state constitution would be the final word on the matter based on their agreement, wouldn’t they?
What secular justification can you give to deny secular equality to all law-abiding adults?
What secular justification can you give to deny secular equality to the vast swaths of heterosexual adults who similarly may not engage in marriage? Appeals to “reasonable people” in a “compassionate society” have no real meaning since “reasonable” and “compassionate” are the epitome of subjective terminology. Using your standard of “equality”, I truly don’t understand how allowing only one pair of homosexual or heterosexual adults to enter into a legal “marriage” is any more justifiable than only allowing one man and one woman to enter into one. Can you explain, using the same justification as you do for allowing homosexual (and bisexual/transgender – whom I didn’t even know were barred from marrying) marriage, why it is okay to deny the same privileges and benefits to equally-competent, equally-consenting, equally-rational adults?
If and when (which is to say, probably never) FLDS and similar polygamist groups seek legal recognition of their three-or-more-adult marriages we can discuss the social and legal quagmire of that specific issue.
So denying something that you consider a fundamental human right is okay just so long as the group being denied their rights doesn’t make a fuss about it? That doesn’t sound all that ideologically consistent. Extrapolating that line of thinking, it would be correct to say that slavery would have been fine and dandy had no slave petitioned for his rights, yes? I’m starting to think that your dedication to equality and “equal protection” is not altogether genuine, David.
You are welcome to your belief, and you are welcome to any personal choices you make based on your belief so long as you do not hurt other people.
Explain why your belief that a fetus has no human rights, and therefore forcing Bill to perform abortions or provide abortive remedies if he works in the medical profession, is less harmful to Bill than Bill’s belief that a fetus has human rights, and therefore his refusal to provide you with an abortion or abortive remedy, is harmful to you.
Bill Wavering wrote (February 22nd, 2010 at 12:28 pm)
“There’s no conservative that wants to intentionally discriminate against anyone. Some of the 20% on the kool-aid drinking right any, but not any true conservative.”
Bill,
I love the comment!
Unfortunately, here in Utardia, the people you describe as the “20% on the kool-aid drinking right” control the state government. Please do a web search for State Senator Chris “Bishop” Buttars and State Senate President Michael Waddoups. (Include the search term ‘gay’ to get the best bat-excrement-crazy stuff.)
Utardians would not know real conservative principles if the principles bit them on their backsides. These are the same people who believe that if children are allowed to see the preparation of an alcoholic beverage in a “family restaurant” that said children will grow up to be drunks and DWI-highway-death killers. (Alcoholic beverage preparation must be done behind a wall or in a separate room completely out of sight of minors.)
By the gods, I hate this stooopid state.
David
Patrick Mulligan wrote (February 22nd, 2010 at 4:01 pm)
“. . .therefore forcing Bill to perform abortions or provide abortive remedies if he works in the medical profession. . .”
Bill is welcome to his personal belief and to take any job that is consistent with those beliefs.
If Bill (or any other individual) does not want to work for a company that offers goods or services contrary to his personal belief, he and others like him are welcome to seek out employment opportunities consistent with those beliefs.
For example, if Bill does not want to work in a pharmacy that sells condoms or birth control pills, Bill is welcome to find a pharmacy that has a business practice consistent with Bill’s preference. Said pharmacy might not be able to accept some insurance plans based on contractual requirements. But clearly, the pharmacy owner has the right to avoid any contractual requirements that are inconsistent with the policies and practices established for said business. On the other hand, if the pharmacy enters into a contractual relationship with one or more insurance companies, and the policy of some or all of the insurance companies requires that the pharmacy offer contraceptives consistent with medical practice and state law, and if the pharmacy engages in business practices inconsistent with signed contractual agreements, then, as we say, the excrement may hit the fan.
If Bill is a physician, and Bill does not want to perform abortions, Bill is welcome not to accept employment at an abortion clinic. On the other hand, if Bill accepts employment with an abortion clinic and then refuses to perform his assigned duties, Bill’s hiring manager should be fired for making a stooopid hiring decision. (And Bill should be offered employment in a different job, etc., if it is possible to do so.)
Bill (and all of us) needs to consider carefully all of the options, requirements, and potential impact of personal decisions before accepting employment (or even earlier when considering educational options and a potential career). Once those decisions have been made, any inconsistency with personal or religious belief rests solidly and exclusively on Bill’s shoulders.
David
Patrick Mulligan wrote (February 22nd, 2010 at 4:01 pm)
“Explain why your belief that a fetus has no human rights. . .”
Oh by the way. . . I didn’t say that.
Please read my comments carefully.
I mean to say exactly what I said but I never say more nor do I ever say less than what I actually ment.
Zounds! I wanted that sentence to be completely illogical, but it actually makes sense.
Anyway. . .
Please don’t assume.
David
Patrick Mulligan wrote (February 22nd, 2010 at 3:46 pm)
“I’m starting to think that your dedication to equality and ‘equal protection’ is not altogether genuine, David.”
You are welcome to your opinion.
In my never-humble opinion, your comments sound a lot like the irrational nonsense spewed by Utardian religionist bigots.
If you want to waste everyone’s time talking about FLDS celestial marriages or other polygamist relationships, please continue to do so. I didn’t introduce plural marriage or other forms of polygamy into the conversation. If you want to get your knickers into a knot over equal rights for polygamists, please feel free to do so. As I said before, I consider plural marriage a non-issue.
Are you really interested in maximizing personal freedoms, or are you one of the kool-aid-drinking 20% who pay lip service to conservative values while trying to shove narrow-minded religious beliefs down the rest of our collective throats?
David