Coalition wants constitutional amendment against gay marriage

tpl: actually, there are some major issues. Medical coverage is probably the most important. And some peripheral things... like when a homosexual is prohibited from attending his/her partner in intensive care because he/she isn't family.

You also lose out on some guaranteed priviledges relating to housing (certain states) and tax credits.

Kingrene: Why don't you focus on the meat of my arguments instead of disingenuously taking statements out of context and accusing me of Christian bashing? I go to Catholic school. Trust me when I say that I have a healthy respect for well-considered Christianity. Simply not mindless-following.
------------------
Clutchcity.net... source for all your Rockets, Astros, political, music, humor, and Gordita news.

[This message has been edited by haven (edited July 11, 2001).]

 

How substantial are the medical and housing benefits that homosexual couples would lose out on?

------------------
matirmama, alabdhabhuumikatva- if you can translate this, you will forever have my respect.

 

I must have misunderstood your father/son analogy.

You used a counterexample to evoke disgust/outrage and tried to threaten that "this was just around the corner". Your example was incest.

Do you have "just around the corner" slippery slope arguments that you can use that don't equate consensual adult homosexuality with incest or pedophilia? If you're going to say "where do you draw the line" give us an analogy of something that is undesirable (and isn't already taken care of by incest taboos or pedophilia taboos... which exist in every culture on the planet).

Slippery slope arguments, btw, are considered fallacious(if there's no causal connection between a and b, the arguer is just using hysterics) though I'll concede that they are useful in subjective arguments.

 

tpl: depends on the situation; for example, if one partner is a homemaker (or even a retail employee) and gets cancer the economic penalties for not being eligible for coverage may be severe. On the other hand, if you never need anything more than a root canal, it may not be such a big deal.

Housing can also be expensive. In MA, for example, your spouse is eligible to move in with you regardless of prior contract agreements concerning the inhabitants; renegotiating this or breaking the lease can cost thousands of dollars.

Not being married, I'm not really sure how much the marriage tax credit is - I'm sure other people on this board know, though.

------------------
Clutchcity.net... source for all your Rockets, Astros, political, music, humor, and Gordita news.

 

Thanks for the info Haven.

I think this would be less of an issue if modern science could prove that there is a chemical inbalance found within homosexuals.

Until that happens though, are the higher ups obligated to grant homosexuals what they're asking for? Should they give into the requests of the homosexual community without being presented ample evidence that homosexuals don't "choose" their lifestyle, or is what they're asking for so inconsequential in the scheme of things, that evidence isn't even needed to grant them this right?

Also,is homosexual behavior found in nature among other animals?

------------------
matirmama, alabdhabhuumikatva- if you can translate this, you will forever have my respect.

 

Given every society has homosexuals, a twin reared apart from his/her gay twin is more likely to be gay him/herself, and that homosexual behavior happen is nature (e.g., chimps/monkeys), I find it pretty hard to believe biology isn't a big part of it. If you are trying to say racism is wrong because it is due to genetics but homophobia is OK because it isn't rooted in genetic differences, I think you will be on the losing side of the debate real quick.

This is quite similar faulty argument provided for the evolution versus creationism debate. It is based on a faulty premise--that some science is "proved" and other science is just "theory". Modern views of science recognize no scientific theory has been absolute over time (e.g., no theory is proved), all science does is weigh the preponderance of evidence based on systemic observation or experimentation. Religious or ethical-based doctrine have their place in society, but they use different methods and can't be confused with science nor used to argue about the accuracy of scientific findings.

It wasn't too long ago that society drew legal and practical lines between Whites versus others. Further, they validated their views based on the teachings of the Southern Baptist church and from literal interpretation of Bible passages--suggesting that Blacks and Whites should not mix and that Whites were superior. The role of the Church in supporting slavery and later discrimination has never been publicized to the degree warranted.


A couple more general comments: homosexuality is not a behavior, but a set of beliefs and identity (e.g., attraction to others of the same sex, feelings of closeness, being partners, etc.). Gay persons may not engage in homosexual behaviors depending on physical, mental or moral factors. So if a homosexual doesn't practice "sinful" behavior but merely wants legal rights of same sex partner would it be OK for those of you morally against the behavior? I bring this up because during one of my pre-marriage classes I remember a rather strict Priest told us (to the audience of fiancées) there was nothing wrong with fiancées living together out of economic circumstance before marriage, it was only wrong for they to engage in sexual behaviors while cohabiting before marriage. Thus even the Catholic Church clearly makes clear distinctions between such things as cohabitation, sexual orientation and the "sinful" behaviors in that doctrine.

 

Haven, since we not only disagree on this subject, but appear to be arguing as if we lived on two different planets, I will make a couple more points and give you the last word (if you even care to have it).

I've participated in hundreds of rounds of policy debate, and won most of them. Trust me when I say, I don't consider this lecturing.

I can hear the crowd yell "shame"! LOL, are you telling me your experience provides you with the ability to never present and illogical argument?

And I argued above that the social distinctions can be logically proven to be arbitrary. There's my argument. You only responded with a disingenous comparison to incest/pedophilia.

Two points here. First, your position is arbitrary. If you get your way, maybe I will go "marry" my roommate so we can get the same benefits that married couples receive. Wow, me and my buddy will have lower taxes!

Also, once again, you know that I never compared the practice of homosexuality to pedophilia or incest. Now, who is the person being disingenuous?

But society still needs justification to be legitimate. You have failed to provide tihs justification. Power doesn't make right.


Correct, but power does make law. By refusing to address the majority, other than telling them to go to hell, you are being very impractical.

You're taking that statement out of context; I believe that unjustified arguments are full of crap and worthless.

In the minds of some, these arguments are "justified". It is your condenscendtion that is unjustified.

Why don't you focus on the meat of my arguments instead of disingenuously taking statements out of context and accusing me of Christian bashing?

The "meat" of your argument is that homophobia is akin to racism, and that homosexuals should have the same marriage rights as married couples. Your argument is flawed until you can prove that sexual preference, like race, is not chosen.

I believe I have addressed your points, but I don't feel like you have addressed mine.

Oh the pain of unrequited debating....

It was fun. Bye for now.

PS I am an religiously agnostic conservative who just doesn't believe in junking our culture on a whim.

------------------

 

haven -- you make some excellent points..you usually do...your only downfall is that you have to keep pointing out just how good you are at making them! Nevertheless...you're asking a man who says he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and his Savior...who believes that the Bible is the Word of God...to disregard that because, according to you, he can't use that to as basis for his argument. I don't think that's entirely possible. We all see the world through certain filters. We can all talk about how smart we are because we're able to set those filters aside for a minute..but when push comes to shove, those filters determine our reality..and how we perceive it.

I think what he's merely trying to say is that this "emotional garbage" (as you put it) from middle America is, in fact, important. After all..these are laws which are to reflect the culture of these very people. Arguing that the American's people's feelings on this are entirely unimportant..particularly on a cultural issue like this...is ridiculous!

Jeff -- you ask how the biological thing plays in to my feelings on this. If someone is born with something (like a skin color), there is no choice. It is entirely arbitrary. Laws that affect people based on those arbitrary distinctions are blatantly unconstitutional (affirmative action notwithstanding -- but let's don't get into that!). Laws that affect people based on their own choices and behaviors are not unconstitutional, however.

------------------

 

Q: When did haven engage in 'Christian bashing'?

A: "And if religion decrees otherwise, that part of your faith is full of crap and worthless" --haven. (italics mine)

I've participated in hundreds of rounds of policy debate, and won most of them.

...and...

Fine, I was wrong about what you were saying. That doesn't weaken my overall position

Who is moderating these debates, and why did they allow you to come to the conclusion that you could misinterpret your opponent's statement, respond in erroneous fashion, and not "weaken your overall position"...?

[This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited July 11, 2001).]

 

Do you have "just around the corner" slippery slope arguments that you can use that don't equate consensual adult homosexuality with incest or pedophilia? If you're going to say "where do you draw the line" give us an analogy of something that is undesirable (and isn't already taken care of by incest taboos or pedophilia taboos... which exist in every culture on the planet).

Slippery slope arguments, btw, are considered fallacious(if there's no causal connection between a and b, the arguer is just using hysterics) though I'll concede that they are useful in subjective arguments. -Achebe

I plead guilty!

I agree that my argument is not very solid from a technical standpoint. I don't like "slippery slope" arguments either, but I was trying to illustrate that marriage should be is a special event that should never be redefined.

Desert Scar- your rebuttal is very impressive to me. Haven, read his post and take notes.

Mc Mark- that is very good info.

I have given this issue great thought over the last 24 hours, and I think our society will grant homosexual couples the same financial and legal rights that married couples enjoy. To satisfy "Joe Sixpack", I think we will use a different word than "marriage" to describe a same sex union.

I am still very worried about granting equal adoption rights to gay parents, because I think children deserve the influence of a man and woman in their lives. We evolved in that manner, and it must be important to our emotional growth. That is probably a whole other thread though.

------------------

 

Homosexuals are certainly BOTH born and elected. It is difficult to tell which and, by the by, is unimportant.

Let them have the legal benefits that a civil union would convey and let them face afterlife ON THEIR OWN TERMS. Isn't that what Free Will is about?

Even as a Christian, you may have to concede a few battles just to still win the war. Even Jesus showed them the heel of his sandals once in awhile!

------------------
"How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these."

 

So it would be constitutional to ban the "choice" of marriage across racial lines?

Further, I happen to believe the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness--as long as such pursuits do not bring harm or health risks to others--is a pretty deep-seated American principle. Further, even if it isn't specifically part of our constitutional document, this principle has been discussed by Federalists and of course laid out in our revolutionary document. The same cannot be said for banning gay marriage--no where have a read that marriage shall only be between a man and women in any of the founding fathers documents to my knowledge--I don't see its place as a "deep seated American principle" anywhere. Though however the founders were very much were concerned about the impact of religious-grounded beliefs being reflected in our institutions, and clearly suggest the freedom to believe what you want is an inalienable right. Thus if someone's religion said homosexuality was for the greater good of god and man would it only then be acceptable?

It seems to me a lot of energy has been thrown to Haven's tactics rather than his and others arguments of late.

(Since I wrote this I say KG had read my post and others. I am also glad you thought about the issue more. I agree with you that providing legal rights under a different name than marriage is indeed the logic step (but to be consistent marriage than should be confined to specific religious based unions and all cival/public recognitions should use a different term), I won't get into the adoption issue other than to say in some Western Europe countries it is legally sanctioned now and there are way too many kids without even a single loving parent or guardian.)


[This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited July 11, 2001).]

 

I'm still trying to figure out just how a homosexual union effects anyone other than those who would actually marry on the basis of their shared bond. So what if we redefine marriage as an institutuion. Just over a century ago, the majority of marriages were arranged. Today, if you don't love someone you marry, it's shocking.

I'm also still trying to determine why any biological factor should have an impact on this decision. "They were born that way and can't help it," is a ridiculous reason to suddenly change how you feel. People make personal decisions all the time for career, love, money and religion.

No one would be forcing religion or business to recognize homosexual unions and, if you hadn't noticed, more and more businesses are doing it anyway because they see it is good for business.

All gays and lesbians are asking is the right to formalize their committment to one another in the eyes of a government that is supposed to be religion neutral. Since the only reason people find homosexuality objectionable is because of a pre-conceived moral/religious belief, I don't see how that can logically be considered a part of a fair and balanced body of laws. Of course, laws are fair and balanced, but this seems to be one of the more blatant exceptions to that.

------------------
How the hell should I know why God would allow the Holocaust. I don't even know how the electric can opener works. - from Hannah and Her Sisters

 

kingrene:

Ahah! Now I see where we went wrong. I don't believe the core of my argument is that homosexuality is akin to race... although I certainly see why you thought that's what I was saying. I do believe that... but that's independent of why I believe homosexuals should be able to marry.

The marriage argument of mine rests on a logical evaluation of the core of the marriage state; if homosexuality is compatible with this "core," then it should be legal.

You're certainly right that I'm not practical ; to be entirely honest, I don't think it's a "winnable" war. Some states will probably legalize gay marriage. Most will not do so for the forseeable future.

As for any condescension for Christians... I really have no condescension for religious people. One of my favorite classes ever was with a Jesuit priest... and he and I, surprisingly, disagreed on very, very little. What does bother me is resorting to "but the Bible says..." arguments. If it's right, demonstrate to me why it's right. If not... well, maybe the person in question is simply misinterpreting it. Or maybe it's wrong.

I know that I probably offend some people in these threads; but barriers between Christians and others are never going to be passed until everyone converts (yeah right) or we stop using religious doctrine as "proof." I believe that God made the world intelligible to man, and therefore we s hould be able to reconstruct the principles of ethics logically. You seem like the type that would not be opposed to doing this.

BrianKagy: The remark that I misundestood him concerning did not jeopardize a material point in our argumentation. It simply lessened my overall disagreement with him .

------------------
Clutchcity.net... source for all your Rockets, Astros, political, music, humor, and Gordita news.

 

First -- of course not!! maybe i didn't make myself clear. any law that adversely affects someone based on grounds of race is inherently unconstitutional. so of course laws that regulate marriage among races is wrong. no doubt. But laws that adversely affect people simply because of a behavior they engage in are free game. In other words, race and gender are protected classes. They always have been. Sexual preference is not. So laws/rules that adversely affect them, simply because of their sexual preference, are not given the strict scrutiny to see whether or not they pass constitutional muster, as laws that adversely affect women in general..or laws that affect blacks in general.

do you honestly believe the lack of talk from the founders concerning homosexual marriage is a "pat on the back" or an endorsement of the idea?? I'm not sure I'd go to the Founders card to present your argument. I do agree with you that liberty is the ultimate virtue (for lack of a better word) that, more than any other, goes to the heart of what our nation is about. That's a large part of why I struggle with this issue. From the beginnning, I said that I'm not sure that I care whether or not homosexuals are allowed to marry or not. But as to whether or not the govt can or can not regulate this, I'm torn. I'm not sure it's the best thing in the world for a society to endorse or license homosexual marriages. I realize that offends some of you. But those are my thoughts and feelings, nevertheless.

------------------

 

MadMax:

I'm not sure if you were just taking this as a given, but figured I'd point it out:

Race and gender have not always been protected classes. Obviously, once upon a time this was even less so; but even now, the Supreme Court is undecided about the level of scrutiny necessary to declare a law unconstitutional on the basis of racial or gender discrimination.

Right now, strict scrutiny is applied to race while only "heightened scrutiny" is applied to gender as a category. Some justices want to apply heightened scrutiny to sexual-orientation as a category; right now, however, sexual-orientaiton classes DO enjoy "rational basis scrutiny" (I believe). Of course, that means that it's very difficult to prove something is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; all the law needs is ANY other justification (can't be completely arbitrary or for the purpose of discrimination)... but nevertheless, some limited protection does exist.

------------------
Clutchcity.net... source for all your Rockets, Astros, political, music, humor, and Gordita news.


[This message has been edited by haven (edited July 11, 2001).]

 

I just think that MArriage should be Abolished by Law

MARRIAGE is a religious ceremony and
has not place in government.

No more special treatment for Married folx
or nothing because . . it is religious

A person's marriage should be between
HIM, HIS MATE and their religious clergy

[If Homosexual Marriages is not allowed in Catholic Church then their would be no Homosexual Catholic Marriages. . . . It is left up to Catholics . . .not the Government]

This is not about religion AT ALL
It is not about morality
It is about Gay couples getting the same
benefits as str8 couples. I say abolish the
benefits because they are unconstitutional anyway

Our country is biased against single people

Rocket River

------------------

 

haven -- you're ignoring all of Kingrene's points. He's pretty much laid out the bottom line for us all to see, and I'm genuinely interested in hearing your (or anyone else's) answers.

 

You may think I am wrong, but you have not addressed any of my points or questions.

In fact, you aren't even debating- you are lecturing.



------------------