What is REALLY at issue with the Same-Sex Marriage debate?

[OtherCheek]

There is no reason for civil unions (which are just government sanctioned marriage with another name). Get rid of it altogether. The government doesn't need to endorse personal relationships.

I might be for this idea that Ansgar and you champion, but I wonder if this might amount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Isn't having a JoP perform a marriage, in a way, involve the government? Census recording would need to be altered somewhat.

Also, I would still want the term "Marriage" to be preserved to define current limits instead of expanded to include more, and I think homosexuals would want the government to enforce the change they seek in altering the definition o marriage.

[Ansgar Seraph]

There is no reason for civil unions (which are just government sanctioned marriage with another name). Get rid of it altogether. The government doesn't need to endorse personal relationships.

Governments do have a vested interest in supporting couples and families. Besides keeping the population stable, couples and families create cohesion in society. The government is interested, then, in both supporting long-term relationships and in helping create upward mobility for families. I'm certainly open to the possibility that our government over-subsidizes couples and families but I don't think it would be pragmatic to ditch the entire system.

Thus, the simple question: do homosexual couples and families negatively impact the societal fabric in any empirical way? Does this negative impact, if it exists, override the government's responsibility to treat people on equal footing? Can the government justify a decision to exclude consenting homosexual couples from the institution of marriage?

If a strong case cannot be made for the empirical damage homosexual civil unions or marriages would wreak on our national community, there is no justification for the government to downgrade homosexual unions to second tier (or, as in the case of North Carolina, non-existence).

—Sam

[OtherCheek]

Governments do have a vested interest in supporting couples and families. Besides keeping the population stable, couples and families create cohesion in society. The government is interested, then, in both supporting long-term relationships and in helping create upward mobility for families. I'm certainly open to the possibility that our government over-subsidizes couples and families but I don't think it would be pragmatic to ditch the entire system.

Thus, the simple question: do homosexual couples and families negatively impact the societal fabric in any empirical way? Does this negative impact, if it exists, override the government's responsibility to treat people on equal footing? Can the government justify a decision to exclude consenting homosexual couples from the institution of marriage?

If a strong case cannot be made for the empirical damage homosexual civil unions or marriages would wreak on our national community, there is no justification for the government to downgrade homosexual unions to second tier (or, as in the case of North Carolina, non-existence).

—Sam

I think there have been plenty of impact studies done. But studies are usually arguable when people want their way, even when those studies show a clear outcome. I see the core of the issue over the meaning of a long-standing cultural term. Do we let the term remain as a restrictive, limiting term, or change it to be nonrestrictive and not limiting. Vivian suggests "liberating" the term and letting it run free and wild. I prefer to keep it as a term that remains to define a narrow scope. I was disappointed to see the term "gay" be altered, thus confusing all young readers of pre 1960 literature that uses the term.

[pancreasman]

I think there have been plenty of impact studies done. But studies are usually arguable when people want their way, even when those studies show a clear outcome. I see the core of the issue over the meaning of a long-standing cultural term. Do we let the term remain as a restrictive, limiting term, or change it to be nonrestrictive and not limiting. Vivian suggests "liberating" the term and letting it run free and wild. I prefer to keep it as a term that remains to define a narrow scope. I was disappointed to see the term "gay" be altered, thus confusing all young readers of pre 1960 literature that uses the term.

Why can't you keep using the term your way and believing that marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals no matter what the government may decide? A person opposed to alcohol is completely free to abstain from it even though it is legal. Why should their concern about alcohol limit the freedom of others?

[GioD]

Thus, the simple question: do homosexual couples and families negatively impact the societal fabric in any empirical way? Does this negative impact, if it exists, override the government's responsibility to treat people on equal footing? Can the government justify a decision to exclude consenting homosexual couples from the institution of marriage?

Granting some form of state-sponsored relationships are necessary, I think the question is not "do [legally sponsored] homosexual couples and families negatively impact the societal fabric", but "do legally sponsored homosexual couples and families offer any benefits to society (besides making things "equal", which is either irrelevant or begging the question)". The purpose of government-sponsored heterosexual relationships is procreation (note that it doesn't matter if they actually have kids, the relationships are procreative-type and not necessarily procreative in end), which is necessary for the furthering of society. Why and how should homosexual relationships be included for the same benefits?

[Ansgar Seraph]

"Innately themselves" is arguable. But I'm ok with giving the same rights to civil unions as are with marriage. What actual and real rights are missing as of today?

Well, certainly missing is the security factor. A homosexual couple married in California or Oregon, for instance, could move to North Carolina and see all of their union rights wiped out. Pilgrim would probably interject here, noting that most of those rights could be instituted through various other legal channels. But that's just creating a scenario where what should be equally analogous to heterosexual union benefits becomes unnecessarily complex and materially damaging.

Even assuming that no rights or securities would be different, however, there would still be significant psychological stigma. "The 'institution of marriage' is too sacrosanct for homosexuals" is a powerfully negative message that has nothing at all to do with the definition of marriage and has a great deal to do with the social hierarchy.

gender is a term describing limitations and boundaries. I would not want the term of male or female altered either.

Neither, I hope, would you want females to be made to feel inferior because of their gender. Institutionally, only males could own land at the beginning of our nation. Would it still be acceptable to prohibit women from land ownership, even if the word "ownership" had, at some era in history, conveyed exclusively masculine ownership?

I'm not for denying any actual real Constitutional rights. But the right to redefine a term is not guaranteed by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

No, we don't really need a Bill of Rights to redefine terms. When Shakespeare wrote about the Three Weird Sisters, he wasn't calling them strange or creepy. "Weird" in that era meant "fateful" and Shakespeare's audience would instantly recognize the witches as the Fates.

And that's why you can't hinge an argument on historical semantics. Words change. Terms evolve. The question isn't whether we're right to redefine a term, it's whether we're right to redefine an institution. And if you are willing to include homosexuals in the institution of civil union, regardless of what that institution is called, then no semantic argument can turn the tide.

There is no "ability" that is being denied. Let civil unions have the rights such as to file taxes jointly etc. I think they are already granted. It is just expansion of a term that has for thousands of years been a term of limitation and distinction that I am against. It's like redefining the term "orchard" to include pine trees. Or like expanding the term conserving to include the activity of wasting.

Then what makes expansion of the term that once was a limiting term, tenable? I'm not calling it sacrosanct. I'm calling it a term that sets a boundary, instead of changing it to a term of new wider boundaries. Orchard's don't include pine trees, and if we changed it with legislation to "include" pine trees, then it would be made useless. And a new term would have to be made by those who want a term that DOES include boundaries. I say, let those who clamor for the change come up with their own term, instead of changing a term that has always defined limited boundaries.

Let's do it this way:

In the Garden of Eden and for thousands of years throughout history, marriage was institutionalized as being between one man and one woman. The term had been relatively settled when Joseph Smith told members of his congregation that God had allowed polygamy at some points in time and was telling Smith, himself a prophet, that polygamy was once again acceptable practice. So members of the LDS community began to practice polygamy.

Has the LDS church at this point changed the long-settled term, "marriage"?

Later, when the government began to harshly impose upon the LDS church's polygamy, was it right to restrict the term "marriage" to one man and one woman? Was it right to do so before President Woodruff officially banned polygamy? Was it right to do so after?

And here's the kicker: what would be the difference between calling polygamous unions in the LDS church "marriages" and calling them "unions"?

We didn't legislate that Black people change the color of their skin, but we did legislate that they are guaranteed the same actual Constitutional rights. Is there a caste system in place in America now because Black folks never could change the color of their skin?

North Carolina did legislate that black people, because of the color of their skin, could not marry white people. That's a caste system.

North Carolina did legislate that homosexuals cannot enjoy any civil benefits of union in the state. That's a caste system. It's a stratification of benefits and privileges, no matter how you look at it.

So why do they need access to the term "Marriage" if the same Constitution rights are made available to Civil Unions?

Homosexuals need and deserve the same access to government services and protections as heterosexuals. So long as there is a civil distinction between "marriage" and "civil union," homosexual couples are entitled to either. Separate the religious institution from the civil institution and solve the problem, I say.

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

I think there have been plenty of impact studies done. But studies are usually arguable when people want their way, even when those studies show a clear outcome. I see the core of the issue over the meaning of a long-standing cultural term. Do we let the term remain as a restrictive, limiting term, or change it to be nonrestrictive and not limiting. Vivian suggests "liberating" the term and letting it run free and wild. I prefer to keep it as a term that remains to define a narrow scope. I was disappointed to see the term "gay" be altered, thus confusing all young readers of pre 1960 literature that uses the term.

Well, let's see the impact studies, then. Let's see the clear outcome and the scientific merits of the studies. Even though there have been significant and consistent studies demonstrating that homosexual parents fare statistically no better and no worse than heterosexual parents, the onus is clearly on those who would limit the freedoms and equal privileges of another group. We should, therefore, be presented with clear, empirical, well-crafted studies that show such clear negative outcomes.

—Sam

[Darth Executor]

Governments do have a vested interest in supporting couples and families.

Repealing women's suffrage would do far more for that than gay marriage ever will.*

Besides keeping the population stable, couples and families create cohesion in society.

So does virulent racism. Given the nature of our current cultural and political climate I would prefer it if governments did not engage in social engineering. Nevermind that family bonds are becoming more and more meaningless despite the fact that government interference in the area has remained largely identical, if not increased.

The ideal behind a free society is that people should be allowed to make their own choices, even if it means they sometimes fail. If we are at the point where the government has to offer people incentives to cooperate with a partner then we are already gone.


*Before some moron asks, no, I don't want to repeal women's suffrage.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Granting some form of state-sponsored relationships are necessary, I think the question is not "do [legally sponsored] homosexual couples and families negatively impact the societal fabric", but "do legally sponsored homosexual couples and families offer any benefits to society (besides making things "equal", which is either irrelevant or begging the question)". The purpose of government-sponsored heterosexual relationships is procreation (note that it doesn't matter if they actually have kids, the relationships are procreative-type and not necessarily procreative in end), which is necessary for the furthering of society. Why and how should homosexual relationships be included for the same benefits?

When writing about equal rights among citizens, the presumption of a society must be that there is good reason to restrict the rights and privileges of a group of people — not that there must be a compelling reason to grant to a group the rights and privileges that other groups have. We do not ask "What compelling reason is there to grant these men freedom from slavery?" Rather, we ask, "Is there a sufficiently compelling reason to keep these men as slaves?" We start from the standpoint that all humans are equal, not that each individual or group must earn access to equal treatment.

Institutionalized unions have far more benefit than mere procreation. The effect of families on societal cohesiveness is inarguable. How is this cohesive network destabilized if homosexual couples and families are given equal rights and privileges?

—Sam

[Sparko]

Those against gay marriage are against it because they believe that homosexual behavior is unnatural

You mean like Paul?

Romans 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

[Darth Executor]

When writing about equal rights among citizens, the presumption of a society must be that there is good reason to restrict the rights and privileges of a group of people

Government endorsement of your personal relationships is not a right in any meaningful sense.

[OtherCheek]

Well, let's see the impact studies, then. Let's see the clear outcome and the scientific merits of the studies. Even though there have been significant and consistent studies demonstrating that homosexual parents fare statistically no better and no worse than heterosexual parents, the onus is clearly on those who would limit the freedoms and equal privileges of another group. We should, therefore, be presented with clear, empirical, well-crafted studies that show such clear negative outcomes.

—Sam

I was merely pointing out that they do exist. But you can pretty much pick which side of the fence you are on, and then find a study to support your side. And I don't see the issue ever being resolved by examining "studies". But if you want to see some studies from my side of the fence, look HERE. If you want to read about studies from the other side of the fence look at papers like NY Times or LA Times, etc. I don't care much to argue about "studies". I'm interesting in maintaining the term to be a restrictive term as it has always been known to be, rather than changing it to an inclusive term. One just as well redefine Male and Female to both be inclusive of all genders. Or redefine the term "Farm" to mean "house", or "cat" to mean "dog".

I find nothing wrong with having restrictive terms and words in language.

[Vivian]

Marriage has never meant anything else but man and woman uniting, legally and lawfully. This is true in Hammurabi's secular code as well as religious code for thousand's of years. What rights are missing from right now? Any real right that marriage affords heterosexual couples can also be afforded same sex couples. But just to have a "term" to validate behavior will do nothing to give them more rights. I believe it is simply "validation of behavior" that is the issue for homosexuals, and real rights is just a ruse.

Hi OC

It is good to chat with you.

As I read this the thought arose: why should any one get married? Really, why does or should anyone get married?

These reasons came to mind:

To have sex.

Because two people are in love and wish to spend the rest of their lives together.

Because two people wish to proclaim their love for one another in a public ceremony, in front of friends and family.

Because two people wish to create a holy union together, two becoming one.

Because they wish to raise children together.

Or if they are Mormon - to be sealed for all Eternity.

Is a 'marriage' necessary for the above, with the obvious exclusion of the last reason? If it is not, then why should any one get married? Why not civil unions all around? Or do you believe that only different sexed couples can have these desires? Can only heterosexual couples desire to not have sex until after marriage? Can only heterosexual couples desire to declare their love for one another in front of friends and family, joining in the holy unity of marriage?

Can't you see that you are saying that only heterosexual couples are good enough for marriage, or that only heterosexual couples desire the things that marriage brings?

Again, why would heterosexual couples be allowed to desire and receive the things of marriage, while homosexual couples are not?

Do you see that the real issue is value as a human being? To think as you are describing, you have to negate homosexuals' desires - assume that they do not desire the same as heterosexual couples, or that the former desires are not as important as the latter.

The real issue is value as a human being.

For your reasons to be considered beneficial to all humanity, loving, one has to say either that homosexuals do not have the same desires as heterosexuals, or that their desires are not as important, thus devaluing them as human beings.


Shalom!

[OtherCheek]

Government endorsement of your personal relationships is not a right in any meaningful sense.

The government is obligated to 'ENFORCE' Constitutional rights. Just look how Obama intends to use government to enforce contraceptives to be paid for by those who conscientiously object to them.

Also, there is no restriction upon same-sex persons. The term "Marriage" itself has always been a "restrictive" term. As far as giving them rights to file jointly, or to pass money in a will, whatever rights I have as a man married to a wife, let them have it with a civil union as far as I'm concerned. I just don't want the government to "enforce" because they "endorse", which will happen. I think it is about changing the meaning of a term, for the purpose of feeling more validated in their lifestyle. They don't need the term in order to obtain actual real rights.

[Vivian]

You mean like Paul?

Romans 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Oh Sparko - please read my posts all the way through. I stated that homosexuality was condemned in the past because back then the practice of homosexuality meant lust - aggression and rape of young men. Of course it needed to be condemned 2000 years ago! But this is no longer the case.

You can disagree with my premises, but attacking the conclusions based on these premises is well, tacky, and makes you look dull and foolish.