[travior]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

What is the basis of law? Does one legislate merely to administrate, defend and establish rule of law, or is one permitted to make moral judgments in said legislation? If so, we went horribly wrong somewhere. If not, then why is anyone objecting to me taking a moral stand on the issue?

[KyleEverett]

I personally don't think that religious views should influence government in any way. I believe in the individuals rights and what doesn't cause them harm shouldn't be illegal.

If marriage is to be defended as a man and a woman on religious grounds, then the term should be taken out of government and replaced with generics like civil union. Marriage is a function of the church and it should be a church that sanctions a marriage, not the secular state.

[DerbyX]

Straights are killing traditional marriage

$1:

And now, another page from the "gay agenda."

You know what I'm talking about: The homosexual conspiracy that will force priests to perform gay marriages against Biblical laws, insert gay teachings into public school curricula, farm out foster children to pedophiles, destroy traditional families, and lead to legal polygamy and bestiality, incest and child marriages.

That "gay agenda."

This was the sort of hate speech used by supporters of California's Proposition 8, the ballot measure that stated "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized." It passed on Tuesday with 52.5 per cent of the vote.

Nothing like hope and change and "Yes we can!" for some of the people some of the time.

As in "I do" – but gays don't.

Which made Wednesday night's demonstrations by thousands in Los Angeles – reminiscent of 1969's Greenwich Village Stonewall Riots – understandable.

Not only are some 18,000 marriages in California now technically in legal limbo, but gays and lesbians had, by majority vote, their minority rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness taken away from them.

As my friend Maggie Cassella, a Connecticut lawyer turned Toronto comic, puts it, given a choice between world peace and gay marriage, she'd opt for the former. That despite her own happy same-sex marriage.

But, she asks, aren't civil rights civil rights? Apparently not, at least in California, as well as Florida and Arizona, where similar bans were passed on Tuesday.

Another measure in Arkansas, which prevents unmarried couples from adopting children, was also passed, despite the thousands of children in state care.

I personally know of a half-dozen same-sex marriages, which are legal in Canada. I've seen the toddlers and the strollers at Gay Pride parades. I can't see how children in those families are any worse off than those in "normal" families. I can't see how their same-sex parents take anything away from Mr. and Mississauga.

But make no mistake, hate crimes against gays still happen, even in the Great Pink North. In September, one man was viciously attacked, his jaw broken, in a Vancouver park. Last month, the FBI reported that hate crimes against gays are up in the U.S.

Whether the "H8 measure," as some call it, will stick remains to be seen.

In June, the California Supreme Court struck down a previous ban on gay marriage. Already three lawsuits are asking that the court overturn the proposition, with two seeking to prevent it from taking effect until its legality is settled.

Proposition 8, which was supported with tens of millions of dollars from Utah's Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, passed because of the large turnout of African-Americans, 70 per cent of whom supported it.

Ironic, because a little more than a generation ago, unions between blacks and whites were illegal in most of the U.S. What's more, president-elect Barack Obama's parents were a mixed-race couple who married in Hawaii where "racial purity" was a non-issue.

You'd think the African-American voters of California would remember those ugly miscegenation laws which were not only relics of the slave era, but also said to be God's will.

In fact, the same people who would go on to rail against gays today used to preach against mixed marriages. Come on down Jerry Falwell, who predicted that such unions would "destroy our (white) race." He was also the guy who, two days after 9/11, went on Pat Robertson's 700 Club and blamed, among others, the "gays and the lesbians" for the terrorist attacks.

But today, the "white race" is still alive and well, and as powerful as ever.

As for the gay agenda's destruction of traditional marriage, just look around. Traditional marriage has been committing suicide without any help from anybody.

[Pseudonym]

KyleEverett KyleEverett:

I personally don't think that religious views should influence government in any way. I believe in the individuals rights and what doesn't cause them harm shouldn't be illegal.

This is a moral stance.

KyleEverett KyleEverett:

If marriage is to be defended as a man and a woman on religious grounds, then the term should be taken out of government and replaced with generics like civil union. Marriage is a function of the church and it should be a church that sanctions a marriage, not the secular state.

I agree with this, but I do also believe that government has a vested interest in promoting the creation of the next generation, which is my primary justification for benefits offered to couples with children.

[DerbyX]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

KyleEverett KyleEverett:

I personally don't think that religious views should influence government in any way. I believe in the individuals rights and what doesn't cause them harm shouldn't be illegal.

This is a moral stance.

KyleEverett KyleEverett:

If marriage is to be defended as a man and a woman on religious grounds, then the term should be taken out of government and replaced with generics like civil union. Marriage is a function of the church and it should be a church that sanctions a marriage, not the secular state.

I agree with this, but I do also believe that government has a vested interest in promoting the creation of the next generation, which is my primary justification for benefits offered to couples with children.

I would think that people wanting to have children of their own accord is the best solution otherwise you get parents who are parents out of financial greed.

That doesn't produce stable happy homes.

[Pseudonym]

People shouldn't have kids for money, but the point is that government has an interest in making it easier to raise them. Like, say tax breaks for your kids. It doesn't mean you get all the money back you would be spending on the kids, but it makes it a hell of a lot easier to do so.

[DerbyX]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

People shouldn't have kids for money, but the point is that government has an interest in making it easier to raise them. Like, say tax breaks for your kids. It doesn't mean you get all the money back you would be spending on the kids, but it makes it a hell of a lot easier to do so.

1) Financial or social incentives for straight families to have more kids isn't affected, threatened, or minimized by gay marriage.

2) Many gay marriages end up with children also. Women use sperm donors, men use surrogate mothers and both groups can adopt.

Those familes and their children deserve the same incentives under the law and their children benefit when they know they are a product of a legally binding marriage and harmed when they learn they are the product of something that other people find repugnant and want banned.

BTW, it used to be illegal for mixed marriages also.

Your president elect is a product of a mixed and formerly illegal union.

Perhaps in a few decades or so your next president will be from a gay marriage?

[hurley_108]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

What is the basis of law? Does one legislate merely to administrate, defend and establish rule of law, or is one permitted to make moral judgments in said legislation? If so, we went horribly wrong somewhere. If not, then why is anyone objecting to me taking a moral stand on the issue?

Care to address my points, which I tried to keep as free of emotion, religion, and morality as possible?

[Pseudonym]

Let me take a look.

[Pseudonym]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Pairwise relationships are a fact of life, be they MF, MM, or FF. The people in such pairs look after each other in all aspects of life - paying bills, doing housework, advocating for each other, looking after kids together, whatever. Men and women have historically had their pairwise relationship put above all the other relationships each individual has with other people. A wife has more say in medical treatment of her husband than does his sister, for example. And it should be so. The two in the pair are, in general, the ones who understand the wishes of each other best, are committed to the other the most. Pairwise relationships must be enshrined in law, otherwise it'll be forever an endless mess of fighting over guardianship or sharing of health benefits, what have you. It just so happens that we call this pairwise relationship "marriage." There is NO GOOD REASON to not extend these rights and responsibilites to MM and FF relationships that we have always extended to MF relationships.

So we can either cast the term "marriage" out of all laws, and have government have no part in the use of the term, and develop a new term for pairwise relationships that it does recognize, and which you would have to use in all official correspondence. Or we can just let same sex couples "marry."

So the point you are arguing here is not with regards to moral judgments being made on the legalization of SSM, but whether the benefits ascribed to the marital relationship given by government are to be extended to same sex couples that perform the same service for society?

[Pseudonym]

My counterpoint to that would be that homosexual couples cannot provide the exact same service to society, so that government would be justified in differentiating in terms of offering benefits. Note that I am not necessarily opposed to civil unions and according benefits in conjunction with those, but I see it as a fundamentally different relationship.

[hurley_108]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Pairwise relationships are a fact of life, be they MF, MM, or FF. The people in such pairs look after each other in all aspects of life - paying bills, doing housework, advocating for each other, looking after kids together, whatever. Men and women have historically had their pairwise relationship put above all the other relationships each individual has with other people. A wife has more say in medical treatment of her husband than does his sister, for example. And it should be so. The two in the pair are, in general, the ones who understand the wishes of each other best, are committed to the other the most. Pairwise relationships must be enshrined in law, otherwise it'll be forever an endless mess of fighting over guardianship or sharing of health benefits, what have you. It just so happens that we call this pairwise relationship "marriage." There is NO GOOD REASON to not extend these rights and responsibilites to MM and FF relationships that we have always extended to MF relationships.

So we can either cast the term "marriage" out of all laws, and have government have no part in the use of the term, and develop a new term for pairwise relationships that it does recognize, and which you would have to use in all official correspondence. Or we can just let same sex couples "marry."

So the point you are arguing here is not with regards to moral judgments being made on the legalization of SSM, but whether the benefits ascribed to the marital relationship given by government are to be extended to same sex couples that perform the same service for society?

You had me until performing services for society. But to that point, yes. There are many aspects of life in which one's husband or wife is by default granted certain powers or priveleges by way of the marriage. And these are, to my knowledge, not differentiated on the basis of gender. A man does not get certain powers and priveleges accorded to him by his wife because he is a man while his wife is accorded a different set of powers and priveleges because she is a woman. Just because one wishes to live with another of the same sex does not mean they should not be allowed to accord that other person those same powers and priveleges. Society has no part in this.

[Pseudonym]

Alright, so more along the lines that since there is no differentiation in the genders within the marital relationship legally, there is no reason to differentiate between SSM and HSM legally?

[hurley_108]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

My counterpoint to that would be that homosexual couples cannot provide the exact same service to society, so that government would be justified in differentiating in terms of offering benefits. Note that I am not necessarily opposed to civil unions and according benefits in conjunction with those, but I see it as a fundamentally different relationship.

I take it this "service to society" is procreation? A woman in an FF marriage can, if she wants, go have an anonymous one-night stand, and get pregnant, and raise that baby with her wife. There are certain insurmountable biological impediments to a man being able to do the same thing, but that doesn't mean he's not able to raise a minor child from a previous marriage or relationship with another man. Or they can adopt. That a relationship is same-sex does not prevent children from being a part of that relationship.

[Pseudonym]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

My counterpoint to that would be that homosexual couples cannot provide the exact same service to society, so that government would be justified in differentiating in terms of offering benefits. Note that I am not necessarily opposed to civil unions and according benefits in conjunction with those, but I see it as a fundamentally different relationship.

I take it this "service to society" is procreation? A woman in an FF marriage can, if she wants, go have an anonymous one-night stand, and get pregnant, and raise that baby with her wife. There are certain insurmountable biological impediments to a man being able to do the same thing, but that doesn't mean he's not able to raise a minor child from a previous marriage or relationship with another man. Or they can adopt. That a relationship is same-sex does not prevent children from being a part of that relationship.

I must admit I don't feel like following two trains of argument at once. Do we want to pursue this or the other?