Comments for: “Marriage Spat: Calif. Supreme Court Decision Sparks Church-State Discussion”

As I recently posted:

If there is a secular legal reason why marriage cannot be defined as a gender free statute, I have never heard one. Religions can maintain their doctrinal stance regardless of what the state confers in its marriage licenses. But the idea that a gender-free definition of marriage will destroy a foundation of our society is not only a ridiculous conclusion, but the current data on marriage does not support this notion since half lead to divorce anyway. Arguing on these grounds is about as rational as arguing that a black person is 2/3 of a person and therefore they cannot vote! Or the argument that women have a naturally weaker physical and psychological makeup that prevents them from voting or serving in the military. Not to see the clear lines of similarity between these equally absurd assumptions about the constitution of human beings is to remain mired in absurdity and a retarded sense of equal regard under the law for everyone regarding with whom they wish to spend their lives in a civil union with all rights and responsibilities thereto.

Rev. Duke has the fundie motto nailed, doesn’t he? That God’s opinion overrules the opinion of judges? How absurd.
I am pleased that CA recognizes that marriage is a civil contract between two people, many of whom do not have religious entanglements. I still don’t understand the fundie mindset that gay marriage is a threat to straight marriages and their families. How are two people in a loving, caring, committed relationship a danger to society?

My legal counsel, “Bob”, and his life partner, “Jeff”, just celebrated their 20th “anniversary” — they are a very committed, stable and caring couple. Now they can celebrate it under CA law. I’m very happy for them both. And the RR can go gnash its teeth down to the roots. Huzzah!

All my life I have known marriage to be the union of 2 people ( no gender applied ) that LOVE each other. Congrats to all the same sex couples in CA that can now wed and share that special happy time in their lives. Once again the RR is showing themselves to be a group that “loves Jesus” and hates everyone else.

“These judges may think they know more about marriage than the rest of us, but I am confident they don’t know more about marriage than God.”

Does this strike anyone else as an incredibly inane thing to say? These judges are not demonstrating or claiming that “they know more about marriage than the rest of us”. They’re demonstrating their knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Obviously they know more about that topic than Rev. Duke does, no matter how much he claims to know the opinions of his god, or thinks his definition of “family” is the correct and only definition.

What an incredibly narrow mindest, and so typical for the religious right.

What a great civil rights victory! This is a big step toward the equality of all people under the law (an ideal laid down by Jefferson himself).

Why should your doctrinal take on marriage be imposed on them in a country that separates religion and government?

You’re incorrectly assuming that there are only religious reasons to be opposed to same-sex marriage. Many think that biology, not theology, is a reason for the government not to promote homosexuality (but many remain silent for fear of being labeled homophobes).

There’s also the incorrect implication that if a religious person endorses X, then it’s a violation of the sep of C&S for the government to also endorse X. Thus, if religious people endorse banning same-sex marriage, then it must be a violation of the sep of C&S for the government to do the same.

Well, many religious people are opposed to letting children drink alcohol or obtain pornography. So if the government prohibits children from obtaining booze and pornography, has the government violated the sep of C&S? Of course not. Same-sex marriage is likewise NOT a sep of C&S issue. AU is off topic on this particular concern.

Another incorrect assumption (made by some people on both sides) is that all secularists are in favor of same-sex marriage.

Matt #1

What biological objection are you referring to?

There are public health and safety reasons for prohibiting children from drinking alcohol.

There is no law I know of preventing parents from showing their kids whatever media they want to, assuming the media is legal for the adults. The laws in place require that children get parental permission to view certain things.

Matt, the government is not promoting homosexuality. Where did you come up with that one?
Marriage is not an issue of religion.
Same sex marriage is about equal rights. I applaud California for their excellent and right ruling on this subject.
If you think same sex marriage is wrong, then by all means do not marry someone of the same sex.

Matt, the statement that you quoted from the article was in response to Rev. Duke’s statements, which clearly were based on his religious beliefs. There’s nothing to indicate that any assumption was made as to other opposing views of same-sex marriage.

“There’s also the incorrect implication that if a religious person endorses X, then it’s a violation of the sep of C&S for the government to also endorse X.”

Can you explain how that implication has been made? I find your example of alcohol and pornography use by children to be a somewhat weak analogy. Plenty of non-religious people also feel it’s wrong to give children alcohol or expose them to pornography. I’ll hazard a guess and say that, to most people, that’s wrong. However, when it comes to same-sex marriage, you’re not talking about the welfare of children, but about decisions and actions of adults.

I’d also like to know upon what biological basis one might be opposed to same-sex marriage. How can a civil ceremony have any affect on biology?

Surely the RR is going to fight this will all its strength. They’re goging to try and amend the California constitution. Fortunately, a wonderful organization called Human Rights Watch will be advocating for equality.

I wonder, did anyone think of amending the constitution after Brown v. Board of Ed? Or when interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional?

Matt, If a secular argument against same-sex marriage can be made, it was not made in this court.

According to the New York Times, “lawyers for the state identified two interests to justify reserving the term marriage for heterosexual unions — tradition and the will of the majority. Chief Justice George said neither was sufficient.”

I think you would agree that tradition and majority will are pretty poor rationals in a civil rights case - it means nothing more than “we don’t like you and we never did.” On that basis, any civil right could be denied.

The other thing to consider in this case is that, for all intents and purposes, it is a “symbolic” victory, since CA had a civil union law that was basically equivelent to marrage in all but name.

It is a sad commentary when it takes a fight in our country for equal access for all to become a reality, but it has always been that way. Our Consititution supports gay marriage, through the pursuit of personal happiness. That is exactly why some want to ammend it so it will state that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The religious will always want to impose their will on the masses, and with this ruling, to uphold the Constitution and it’s guarantee of the freedom to pursue personal happiness, it sends a clear message to the religious right that laws based on their bigotry and hatred of another is not appropriate in a free society.

The decision to grant gay marriage as a legal and binding contract only makes our culture more rich in the long run. It shows we really do believe that all men are created equal, and no one religious doctorine should be imposed on the citizens of this great country as the “law of the land”.

The Consititution does not choose which Americans it represents. It represents all Americans. Allow all in our country to be counted as equal and be given dignity and respect based on the fact they are Americans, pay their taxes, etc, not simply because of one’s sexual orientation or whom one loves.

My only other comment is this: if marriage between a man and a woman is so sacred, why on earth would the religous tear down and burn their own sacred cow. Their words mean nothing in light of the amount of divorces that are performed between those who believe that marriage is ordained by God. When they divorce, they they spit in the face of their god and they turn their back on the one they supposedly serve.

Great comments, all.

Live and let live.

Another comment on Matt’s comment: In order for a government to deny certain rights and/or privileges to one class of citizens, which it extends to all other citizens, there must be what is called “a compelling state interest” for doing so.

Where is the compelling state interest for denying marriage to same-sex couples?

So far I’ve seen only two main arguments, which the “antis” keep parroting:

(1) It would destroy traditional marriage (but they never explain HOW);

(2) It’s ag’in’ the Bahble.

Neither is very convincing.

Matt said: “Many think that biology, not theology, is a reason for the government not to promote homosexuality”

Matt, could you elaborate on this point? I’m not sure what you mean.

What biological objection are you referring to?

That homosexuality is a biological abnormality. Nature/evolution has created specific sex organs that go together. By approving same-sex marriage, the government is sending the message that abnormality is normal. I think that’s a wrong message.

If you think same sex marriage is wrong, then by all means do not marry someone of the same sex.

I doubt you’d use the same argument if someone wanted to marry a 12-yr-old. Or a horse.

Can you explain how that implication has been made? I find your example of alcohol and pornography use by children to be a somewhat weak analogy. Plenty of non-religious people also feel it’s wrong to give children alcohol or expose them to pornography.

You just explained the implication. Plenty of non-religious people also feel that same-sex marriage is wrong. Analogy intact.

Matt #1

Matt, marriage is a civil contract between consenting adults of the same species. If someone wanted to marry a 12 year old or a horse, well, there are laws about that sort of thing. Laws that have nothing to do with consenting adults of the same species. Where do you come up with this nonsense? Along with that load of excrement about the government “sending the message that abnormality is normal”?

Matt says: “That homosexuality is a biological abnormality.”

Ummm, once being left-handed was considered to be some kind of “abnormality.” We’ve since learned there is nothing abnormal at all. Just as the hand you write with is no one’s business, neither is their sexual orientation.

“Nature/evolution has created specific sex organs that go together.”
Your mind believes this to be true. It’s actually a RRR argument against accepting others’ differences.

“By approving same-sex marriage, the government is sending the message that abnormality is normal. I think that’s a wrong message.”

Employing a person at the registry of motor vehicles (or any other govt agency) with a physical abnormality could be sending the message that physical abnormality is normal. Do you have an issue with employing a person who has a physical abnormality, Matt?

Refusing to discriminate against a person because of their race, religion, national origin, physical “abnormalities,” age, or sexual orientation is standing strong for the principle of equality for all.

Today you could support discrimination against another for whatever reason you see fit; tomorrow it could be you.

Thanks, Albatross! You said what I wanted to say. My fibromyalgia is acting up more than usual today & I’m having communication difficulties. Is that a “biological abnormality”?

Matt- Homosexuality is a biological abnormality? Uh, OK. So is dwarfism, and paralysis. Are these reasons to deny anyone civil rights? Or does the thought of 2 men (or 2 women) together just make you feel all oogy inside?

Bugger off, Matt.

Matt said, “…homosexuality is a biological abnormality.”

Sorry, Matt. It’s quite the opposite. Homo- and bi-sexuality have been well documented in many species, both captive and in the wild. Bonobo populations, for instance, are predominantly bisexual - copulation between just about everyone serves many social functions for them. Hey… not a bad idea, at that!

Big horn sheep, giraffes, dolphins, penguins, ostriches, flamingos, and so on. When I was a zookeeper, I had a pair of male peccaries in my care that mounted each other all the time…and they were neutered!

As Albatross said, its as natural as being left handed. And just where would baseball be without lefties?

OMG!
When will people (Matt) stop calling homosexuality abnormal? OK, in the strictest sense of the word, it is; that is, fewer than 50% of the world’s population of any species are homosexual. But when the % of a given species (and over 1,500 — so far — have homosexual sub-populations) is constant over time, which it is, that represents a statistical norm. Get it? NORM? It’s normal for N% of 1,500 different species to be homosexual.

And BTW, the National Academy of Sciences has shown that the hypothalamus (the part of our brain that governs sexual response) of self-identified gay men DOES NOT RESPOND to the pheromones of females. It responds to male pheromones, and most powerfully to the pheromones of gay men. So not only is it normal, it’s natural.

And as for marriage (in this country, anyway) having anything to do with God, let me ask the RR this: if two fundamentalist Christians are married in their church by their minister, are they married in this country? The answer, of course, is “No; not until they go to City Hall and pay the fee and get the legal paper.” Similarly, if two atheists go to City Hall and follow the law but do nothing by way of a religious ceremony, are they married in this country? “Yes.” So what does marriage, for a U.S. citizen, have to do with God? The answer: “Only as much as that citizen wants it to.”

Matt, I’ll concede to you that this topic may not fall entirely within the category of separation of church and state. The topic of same-sex marriage does overlap with the concepts of personal liberties and the right to the pursuit of happiness, which are equally important to most of us with an interest in maintaining church/state separation. However, as I stated previously, the article focuses only on the RR response to same-sex marriage. Using my response to claim that the article indicated otherwise was disingenuous and did not answer my question.

“Many think that biology, not theology, is a reason for the government not to promote homosexuality (but many remain silent for fear of being labeled homophobes).” (my emphasis added)

I think there’s a good reason for that fear. This argument, while not based on religious views, does not have the appearance of a scientific or rational basis.

Ah, the convincing arguments of statistics.

Glenn stated well that if marriage is so sacred, why, even in the Bible belt, the divorce rate so high? Perhaps it’s time to rethink and redefine marriage. The current Judeo-Christian model does not have a satisfactory success rate. A little better than 50%.

And since I threw one out here, let’s look at statistics, and basing definitions of normal/abnormal on those in smaller classes.

We already know that the homosexual community of this world is between 5 and 10% of the population. To be frank, since I’ve sat in on their agenda meetings, which includes Mimosas at 10 AM (and it was good champagne by the way), I really don’t think they have the numbers to sustain their take over of America. Anyway, lets now shift our attention to another small group and see about applying a label to them.

One might think that the number of coin collectors and stamp collectors of this country would be a small group. Anyone know any? I somewaht do, after finding a 1940 nickel in my change last year. (Imagine that, a coin as old as me that has passed through how many pockets in 50 years?) Which one group is even smaller than the two I just mentioned?

HUNTERS!

Yea, you heard me. There are more stamp collectors than hunters. In fact, on a percentage basis, hunters and homosexuals are roughly the same population wise. Maybe we should call this group of killers abnormal. And we all know what special privileges arms owners seek. Maybe the biological factor involved in hunting is abnormal. Carry that over to violence in general, and voila! we discover a small group of the population are actually the violent ones that create an improper generalization….

A previous poster incorrectly said the Constitution gives equality through pursuit of happiness. It was the Declaration that stated that, but the point is still valid. Statistics are safe and insular from really knowing the faces and humans bound in these chains of antiquated laws based on a failing moral system.

Kudos to California, and my prayer is that this ruling picks up steam and opens the door of equality across the country.

well matt, if the forgoing hasn’t convinced you that the term “abnormal” as applied to homosexuality is no less erroneous and frankly bigoted then the kkk’s opinion of non whites, you might consider the “fact” that it has been with us since recorded history and unless some magical god suddenly switched things around at the first historical record, has been a part of nature for the billion + years of evolution. no??

Elizabeth said “If someone wanted to marry a 12 year old or a horse, well, there are laws about that sort of thing.”

Funny, there were laws against homosexuality just a few years ago, and laws against same-sex marriages have been overturned. So what makes you think laws against polygamy, beastiality, and pedophilia would be any harder to overturn for the same reasons? What goes on “under the sheets” is none of the government’s business, right?

No, I’m not saying those who are homosexual are pedophiles. What I’m saying is that the same logic can be applied in all cases. “My ’sexual drive’ is ‘normal’ and none of your business…”

I’m sure someone will say the laws won’t change because we need to protect kids. But the impact on children was one of the reasons for laws on marriage to begin with, and they haven’t stopped anything so far.

Not all arguments on this topic are religious.

JD says: “But the impact on children was one of the reasons for laws on marriage to begin with, and they haven’t stopped anything so far.”

JD, what laws on marriage are you referring to? What haven’t these laws stopped?

JD put 3 or 4 non-related ideas into a blender and came up with- “What I’m saying is that the same logic can be applied in all cases. “My ’sexual drive’ is ‘normal’ and none of your business…”

I’ve got news, JD. Gay adults are having sex, regardless of the law. Gay adults are living together in committed relationships, regardless of the law. Gay adults would like to have their relationships recognized with the same legal status as their straight counterparts. The onus is on the anti-marriage advocates to come up with a secular reason for denying them this right.

Funny, you equate 2 adults choosing to get married with polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia. The onus is on you to explain how those things are related.

That’s right, JD, allow gays to get married, and before you know it, five year olds will be allowed to drive cars! We’ve got to protect our children!

Marriage to animals and 12-yr-old children? What a straw-man, phony argument this is! Like any other legal contract, marriage requires INFORMED CONSENT of all parties to the contract. How does a horse give informed consent? And we have laws setting “the age of consent” in all 50 states. I say this “argument” is a pile of meadow muffins.

Alan, as long as we’re going to have 5 year olds driving cars let’s make it a cigar smoking, cell phone talking, silver bullet road coke in the cup holder 5 year old!

My son just turned ten. I’m something of a disciplinarian. When he’s liquored up, I take away the keys! (His wife supports me on this.)

RE: ..this “argument” is a pile of meadow muffins..

That doesn’t mean it isn’t actually, really being made and believed! Representative Jim Welker of Loveland, Colorado actually is quoted as making it! In public!

It was reported in the Denver Post, in April of 2005 - The following link quotes the article.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/04/02/863/52275

What was that about the RR using scare tactics?

Maybe the whole slippery slope actually started when interracial marriage was legalized. (sarcasm…)

Thank you, Dave C. My daughter (BS Summa cum Laude, MS, PhD) is Eurasian. Half a century ago in some states, her conception would have been a criminal act.

Matt frothed- “Nature/evolution has created specific sex organs that go together.”

He will, of course, ponder the illogical bigotry behind this statement the next time he engages in oral sex.

But then again, maybe he won’t.

Some pretty weak arguments here. American adults should be able to do what they want in private. Gay, straight, why does anyone care? Bestiality and pedophilia are different, and anyone that thinks these are logical progressions of homosexuality is obviously not in touch with reality. Adults are not children or animals. Common sense is apparently not easy to come by for some people. All Americans should have the same rights, regardless of gender, race, etc. These ridiculous “thought” experiments are pathetic and narrow minded. I could care less what my neighbors do in private, but if they are abusing children, then they should be punished. Pretty simple really. Next.

G Man - I agree on the weak arguments. They’re all too predictable from the RR. Matt is right, on the one hand, that equal rights is not a religious issue, solely. However, the arguments he is using to support his distaste for homosexuality are surely those that the RR uses predominantly.

I’m sure this is an old argument, but I’d like to point out that gay marriage has been legal in the state of MA for four years. At the time, those awful “liberals” could boast claim of the lowest divorce rate in the nation. Today, even though the RRR claimed gay marriage was a threat to traditional ties, MA still can boast the lowest divorce rate in the nation. (Funny, the highest divorce rates are still in the Bible belt.

I believe, in a sense, that MA has paid retribution for its Puritanical atrocities of long ago, by being so bold as to step forward in a grand experiment that PROVED gay marriage was NOT a threat to so-called traditional marriage.

Matt, I must admit, I’m a little taken aback that you are choosing to use RRR arguments to support your feelings of distaste on this matter. on 5/16 @ 7:00, I asked you to elaborate and clarify a point your were trying to make. Care to?

Equal rights for all is not a threat to

This happened before. I have no idea why my post split like that. Sorry.

Equal rights for all is not a threat to anybody. Religious or not, black, white, somewhere in between, yellow, gay or straight, republican or democrat. It is the equal rights itself, that I believe makes it a Constitutional issue.

Living in California, I am very proud of the enlightened decision of my state’s Supreme Court.

I have yet to see any good or rational reason, including in the comments on this thread, that two people who love each other, who just so happen to be of the same sex, should be denied the right to marry, and to have the same legal rights and priveleges as opposite sex couples.

If anybody objects because of their religious beliefs, or because of personal distaste, then that is solely their problem, and not one for the rest of society.

No, I’m not saying that those who are homosexuals are pedophiles.”

Well, no, but you did implicitly equate homosexuality with pedophilia in the paragraph above the sentence that I quoted; otherwise, you wouldn’t believe that the overturning of laws against homosexuality would lead to the overturning of laws against pedophilia. Even the Bible doesn’t equate those two things (although it does, ridiculously, equate homosexuality with thievery).

Lowest divorce rate in the nation? No way… source?

Not that it matters that much for the discussion at hand. Back when MA legalized same-sex marriage the RR predicted this would spell the downfall of western civilization.

That hasn’t happened. In fact, MA has been quite stable. Heterosexuals still get married and stay married there. Canada should have also fallen into chaos. Again, nothing.

I think KF Scott hit on the one thing that will ensure that an amendment stating marriage is between one man and one woman won’t pass: pursuit of happiness as guaranteed in the US Constitution. Such an amendment would be unconstitutional and would be struck down.

Frankly, the homosexual population is so small that I see no reason to fear homosexuals practicing the same guaranteed rights as heterosexuals. No one will suddenly find themselves in a gay marriage (or gay) and there is absolutely no evidence to show that homosexuality and gay marriage is a detriment to society. As for god knowing more about marriage than a judge, last I heard he was an unwed father.

Matt #1, generally, you and I agree on most points discussed on the AU blog. However, I disagree with you entirely regarding homosexuality being abnormal. There are a lot of things that are abnormal, but people who have those abnormalities are not denied Constitutional rights–e.g., birth defects resulting in mental or physical limitations. Homosexuals, though considered abnormal by many who support equal rights for them, would not consider their sexual orientation as a limitation. There is no emprical evidence to support such a notion.

JD, regarding the feared repealing of laws against beastiality, ain’t gonna happen. That is the typical red herring thrown out by fundies who are afraid the sky is falling. Those laws protect those who cannot otherwise protect themselves–minors and animals. There are two key words to this entire debate both here and on other forums. Those words are: consenting adults. And just what laws on marriage are protecting children? I’m a single mother and I’m not breaking any laws by being such, nor is my child in danger because of it.

Titania-

I don’t think these constitutional amendments are actually designed to protect actual marriages. They exist to keep popular the idea of a “traditional marriage.” Think stereotypical 1950s marriage. The man is firmly in charge, the woman totally obedient. He works, she stays at home. Her role is in the household.

Don’t forget the RR’s historical (and current) role of opposing feminism full stop.

It’s tough for a homosexual marriage to be “traditional.” If both people are the same sex, how can one be superior to the other? THAT is where the threat lies.

And, to their credit, the RR is right to be nervous. Homosexual marriages would further erode the “traditional” notion that women are inferior and should be mindlessly submissive. It will instead popularize the notion that a marriage is a union of equals.

Dave C. Good point!
I used to live in a predominately gay region of Southern California. We once had a house guest who was older, and lived a sheltered life. We took her to a dinner party where there were several gay couples. On the drive home she said (quite innocently) “I don’t have a problem with people being gay, but how do they decide which one is the man and which one is the woman?”
It is this kind of thinking that throws the RR into a tizzy! They cannot accept equality in a relationship, so the whole concept of “non-traditional” marriage just gives them a headache. Better to leave things the way they are than to try to figure out something different and new, yes?

Dave C: 2002 rates http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar%26div.pdf

Also search the census reports. 2005 showed a rate of 2.2 per 1000. The only place with a lower number was DC. Barna group also has info.

But, again, my main point was just as you stated. The legalization of gay marriage in know way caused the “demise” of traditional marriage.

OK, I have no idea why AU moderators would have a problem with my trying to provide the source for my info on MA having the lowest divorce rate. Sorry, Dave C. I tried. I gave a CDC link, and also a census link.

MA (in 2005) had a 2.2/1000 rate. The only place with a lower number was DC.

Albatross wrote: Ummm, once being left-handed was considered to be some kind of “abnormality.”

Not sure what your argument is. That anything considered abnormal in the past or present should be considered normal in the future? I disagree. Saying that left-handededness isn’t an abnormality doesn’t prove that homosexuality isn’t an abnormality.

Your mind believes this to be true.

Male and female are not concepts that I created in my mind.

Employing a person at the registry of motor vehicles (or any other govt agency) with a physical abnormality could be sending the message that physical abnormality is normal. Do you have an issue with employing a person who has a physical abnormality, Matt?

Depends on the job and the abnormality. Bus driver and blind? Problem. Regardless, we’re discussing marriage, not employment. I don’t think anyone gets the employment-related message that you suggested (can you point to anyone?). Millions do see the aforementioned message from approving same-sex marriage.

. . . his distaste for homosexuality

Interesting description. I have a “distaste” for homosexuality the same way I have a “distaste” for epilepsy, deafness, etc. Your mind is adding attributes to me that aren’t there.

Matt #1

P.S. There has been some indication that having more than one link per message causes problems. Don’t know if your MA post had more than one link, but FYI.

Bud wrote: the term “abnormal” as applied to homosexuality is no less erroneous and frankly bigoted. . .

Is it “bigoted” to say that blindness is an abnormality? Does that mean I hate and/or fear blind people?

consider the “fact” that it has been with us since recorded history

Many abnormalities have existed since recorded history. Duration doesn’t equal normal.

Glenn wrote: Homo- and bi-sexuality have been well documented in many species

Many abnormalities have been well documented in many species. That X has occurred (however well documented) doesn’t mean that X is normal.

Robin wrote: But when the % of a given species (and over 1,500 — so far — have homosexual sub-populations) is constant over time, which it is, that represents a statistical norm. Get it? NORM? It’s normal for N% of 1,500 different species to be homosexual.

So if N% of a population has X (no matter how small N is), then X is normal? I disagree, and I’m fairly certain that every statistician on the planet would also disagree. Also, you’re being disingenuous with your use of “normal.” I could substitute blindness, deafness, and a plethora of other abnormalities for X to help you see how silly your argument is. Yes, N% are blind, but blindness is still an abnormality.

Matt #1

Dave C - lets try this one: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html

Matt, can you please back up your claim with evidence, that homosexuality is an abnormality - biological or otherwise?

Matt, we get it, you think homosexuality is abnormal. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But guess what, Matt? They are human, they are here to stay, and that being the case they deserve the same civil rights as any other human being in the United States of America. Get over it.

Albatross-

Cool stats. I didn’t know that divorce rates have dropped so much since 1990! It’s also curious that since 1990 gays have become more accepted in society. This is definitely a problem for the RR. (Note: I don’t claim there is any causal relation between societal attitudes toward gays and divorce rates.)

The problem with distinctions between the normal and the “abnormal” or “deviant”, is that in addition to an objective, value-free meaning they also have perjorative connotations. They are used to express moral judgements as much as they are used for statistical or classificatory purposes.

This allows a moral or ethical judgement to be smuggled in based on a quantitative or qualitative fact. The distinction between “is” and “ought” should be respected and ethical arguments should be made in ethical terms.

Albatross wrote: Matt, can you please back up your claim with evidence, that homosexuality is an abnormality - biological or otherwise?

I thought I already explained it. There’s male and female. A rather fundamental biological paradigm for humans. That’s natural. That’s normal.

Elizabeth wrote: They are human, they are here to stay…

Pedophiles are human and here to stay. Your point? (I’m not saying homosexuality is similar to pedophilia. I’m just pointing out, through substitution, that your argument is not convincing.)

Matt #1

No, Matt. I’ve asked you to back up with evidence your statement that homosexuality is a biological or physical abnormality. See, even homosexuals/bisexuals fit the “paradigm for humans” in the sense of being female or male, if by that you mean their particular genitalia. Their sexual preference, on the other hand is where you are trying to prove abnormality. Evidence?

Matt said: “Nature/evolution has created specific sex organs that go together.”
To which I relied: “Your mind believes this to be true.”

Matt’s next response: Male and female are not concepts that I created in my mind.

Disingenuous, Matt. I didn’t claim you created the concept of male and female in your mind. I claimed that your opinion that sexual organs were designed to “go together” is a concept you created in your mind. It’s also a favorite of the RRR. Your thought process in this sense allows you to believe that anything other than heterosexual activity is “abnormal.” You are entitled to your opinion. Do you have any evidence that homosexuality is an abnormality, or is this just your opinion?

I’ve never been too caught up in the private sex lives of others, gay or straight, but I certainly think they are all entitled to the same civil rights.

Alan, I think you nailed this one perfectly. The is-ought gap must be traversed somehow. Sure, homosexuality is rare (abnormal). But what makes it bad?

The is-ought gap also applies to evolution and science (or “nature”). Evolution tells us what is (how things work, what reproductive advantages certain traits have and why). But it doesn’t tell us anything about how we ought to live our lives.

Sex can be used for reproduction. But it can be used for other things (fun, making intimate relationships, etc). What *ought* it be used for? Science (evolution, nature) can give no answer whatsoever. It can only tell us the consequences of our actions; it cannot give us moral evaluations.

Matt, none of your arguments have been in the least bit convincing. All you have done is regurgitate back what the RR has apparently stuffed down your throat. If you weren’t comparing homosexuality to pedophilia why did you use that comparison? Besides, pedophilia is abuse of children, and there are laws preventing that. What goes on in the bedroom of two consenting adults is none of your business, and not for you to judge if it is “normal” by your standards.

Dave C, I like your point about the many uses for sex. I’d like to add that there’s a lot more to sex than intercourse, and the requisite “fitting together of organs”. Personally, I don’t think there’s anything bad or abnormal about homosexuality. To a lot of people who are gay, it is normal, just like being blind is “normal” to someone who has been blind since birth. When it comes to sexual preference, “normal” is in the eye of the beholder.

Check this out.

It’s a blog post from Blue Collar Scientist about a school that was sued over their anti-gay policies.

http://bluecollarscientist.com.....-slapdown/

At the end it contains a funny top ten list of bad arguments against same-sex marriage. #8 is particularly appropriate for AU:

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

Dave C. Thanks so much for sharing that link. I’ll be cleaning my monitor for the next few minutes (big glass of iced tea). I hope it hasn’t permanently ruined rainbows for me. I never pictured gay people having sex when I saw a rainbow before, but after reading that article…………..

Titania said: There are two key words to this entire debate both here and on other forums. Those words are: consenting adults.

Is that why no one has mentioned the third example brought up: polygamy? Since multiple marriages would be between “consenting adults,” they should be allowed, right? (Wouldn’t work for Elizabeth; she said “TWO consenting adults…”)

Where’s the furor to overturn those laws? (Maybe it’s because the government would be “establishing a religion,” since some religions allow plural marriages…)

Why the selective outrage?

For that matter, where’s the furor from those who think two people living together shouldn’t be “denied” the rights of others who just happen to be married?

The point is that this is not JUST about homosexuality.

The other “retort” I’m amused by is that examples of further “non-standard” marriages are called “straw men.” By definition, a straw man is an absurd argument used to weaken an opposing view. But absurdity is relative. 50 years ago, when laws on adultery were going unenforced because it was “just sex” between “consenting adults,” “gay marriage” was a straw man. What was once “inconceivable” is now nearly a social norm.

JD, you’re right, it wouldn’t work for me. I grew up as an only child and never really learned to share. What’s mine is mine. I do however know people who are polyamourous, and it works for them. Not because their religion requires it, they just like variety. And none of them are married to more than one person.

Slippery slope arguments work both ways.

Perhaps we should be nervous about further restrictions on marriage. If gay marriage is banned, what next? A ban on interracial marriage again? A ban on marriage between people of different religions?

It’s not so implausible. Bob Jones University held a strict ban on interracial dating until 2000 and fought hard to keep it, even forgoing their tax exempt status. Sadly, there are plenty of people today who would be sympathetic to such a ban. I would venture to guess that there would be more in favor of a ban on interracial marriage than those in favor of legalizing polygamy.

Matt, I tried writing a long reply to you, but gave up. The thought of 2 men or 2 women loving each other makes you very very uneasy. Your posts here make that clear. I’m sorry for you. I hope you work it out eventually.

Gay American citizens want the same rights accorded to any other American citizen. Full and equal rights under the law.
Nothing less will do. It’s coming.
And opponents are going to have to come up with better arguments than “it’s abnormal”.
What’s normal changes with the age, and is largely defined by the majority. It’s an argument that won’t last 10 seconds in court. Unless they can somehow explain in detail how allowing gays to marry infringes on someone elses life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Get help, Matt. You’ll feel better.

Here’s a post I found at Ed Brayton’s blog, “Dispatches from the Culture Wars”. It’s from a poster who goes by “King of Ireland”, an evangelical Christian who actually thinks these things through for himself.

“This is a good ruling. The majority should not be allowed to violate the rights of the minority. This is the spirit of our Constitution and is repeated throughout the Federalist Papers. Gays are discriminated against and should be allowed to marry. The only possible exception would be if the state legislature passed a law but I think if I was on the Federal court I would declare it Un Consitutional.

If some are wondering why I changed my mind as usual my own words came back to me. I have said time and time again that for me to ensure my rights by violating someone elses rights is wrong. Any law used against a gay person could one day be used agaisnt me as a Christian. I am not better or no worse. Both groups deserve protection to pursue happiness anyway they want as long as it does not hurt anyone else.

Ed I stand corrected on this issue and stand with you in your fight to ensure that gays are treated no different than anyone else in this country. I guess that means that if it takes it I would die to fight for there rights to marry just like anyone else and I do not say this lightly and have come to this conclusion through much thought, and yes, prayer about it. The minority needs to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. It is foundational to the Constitution and is a big part of the Federalist Papers.”

http://scienceblogs.com/dispat.....mmentsArea

RE: The point is that this is not JUST about homosexuality. Why the selective outrage?

Sorry, but it is about homosexuality, and there is nothing wrong with “selective” outrage.

For there to be a civil rights demand, there has to be a significant population that is being done an injustice, feels that injustice and is willing to speak out and work towards its correction. Polygamy is probably never going to have those conditions for several reasons, and, even if it did, may not warrant an expansion of civil liberties in any case.

One reason that it won’t have the conditions necessary to instigate a civil rights movement is that it is basically impractical. Wide spread polygamy cannot be maintained simply because of the natural biological ratio of men and women. It simply won’t work. It is never going to reach “critical mass”.

Another reason is that there is no agrived population that perceives itself as suffering an injustice. Whatever (non-religious) needs polygamy satisfies, they seem to be satisfied quite well within our normal cultural limits of serial monogamy coupled with some tolerance of infidelity and informal relationships outside of marriage. Outside of religious cults their isn’t a constituency.

Be that as it may, even if a demand was made for formal recognition of polygamous relationships, it would probably be unsuccessful on its merits. This is because (as far as I can tell) polygamy is characteristic of elites in highly traditional male-dominated cultures (or cults). Our society treats elite privileges with suspicion and has a strong social interest in promoting gender equality and individualism. Elimination of elitist, exploitive social institutions and promotion of egalitarian, individualist social institutions are compelling state interests.

The more I think about it, the more convinced I’m becoming that government should have nothing to do with marriage or any other kind of “personal” union. I’d have no problem with polygamy being legal, providing all parties are consenting adults. However, polygamy typically has meant one man involved in heterosexual relationships with several women, rather than involving any homosexual activity. (In those situations, polygamists may actually be opposed to the legalization of their marital status. It might result in the reduction of their dependency on state welfare systems.) Any “polygamy” law would need to be open to all types of group marriage in order to be seen as non-religious. I can only imagine the kind of havoc that would create. Maybe government involvement should be scrapped now, before it gets any worse.

Alan wrote: Elimination of elitist, exploitive social institutions and promotion of egalitarian, individualist social institutions are compelling state interests.

Are you saying the government has a compelling state interest to deny polygamists the right to marry because polygamy is sexist and promotes gender inequality? So, likewise, does the government have a compelling state interest in preventing Baptists from believing that wives should submit to their husbands? Should that be illegal?

But that brings up a great point. Tell us, folks, why should polygamy be illegal?

Substitution is a wonderful argument-crusher, so allow me to do it yet again with Rick’s post:

“Polygamist American citizens want the same rights accorded to any other American citizen. Full and equal rights under the law. Nothing less will do. It’s coming.”

Discuss.

Matt #1

Oh, Matt proposes a game! Let’s see- “is polygamy ‘abnormal’?”

Discuss.

This is fun!

Looks like Rick has no answer.

Anyone else?

Matt #1

Matt - Please remember that you are discussing this issue with someone who (to use an example that came up some time ago) is not all surprised or troubled that the government both discourages smoking and subsidizes tobacco farmers.

My approach is not quite so “principled” as yours (or JD’s). It is a bit more practical and sociological in nature. So for me, slippery slope arguments by analogy to other behaviors bring up the question “what are the chances”? As JD pointed out, the chances may be greater than we might expect, but none-the-less, I don’t believe that a serious movement for institutional recognition of polygamy is in our future. Same with marriages between men* and horses.

My argument against the suppression of polygamy based on a compelling state interest in egalitarian and gender equality is not very well thought out. I’m not sure it is worth the effort, but if we were to explore the issue further, I might be convinced to give up on it.

What would be far more likely, in my opinion, is that a religious cult, like the FLDS, may at sometime seek a religious accommodation to an otherwise generally applicable law. (I know, you aren’t big on accommodation either. It’s that “principle” thing.) In that case, I think reasonable and well intentioned people should take their arguments (whatever they may be) seriously and give them due consideration. I believe that in this case they would in all likelihood lose their case, but if they are willing to make one, I think it should be considered seriously.

(*Odd, no one brings up women marrying horses. Seems more possible to me.)

RE: My argument against the suppression of polygamy based on a…

Should read “My argument for the suppression of polygamy….” Sorry for the typo.

Jax wrote: To a lot of people who are gay, it is normal, just like being blind is “normal” to someone who has been blind since birth.

Are you saying that blindness is a normal condition? If so, ludicrous. Or are you saying that people who are blind from birth are simply used to their blindness? If so, I agree. It’s still an abnormality, whether they’re used to it or not.

BTW, do you really think that abnormality is determined by the individual? That if a person doing/having X thinks X is normal, therefore X is normal? If so, substituting X with something less socially acceptable will quickly terminate that logical path.

Btw, there is a prominent and large subculture in the deaf community that thinks deafness is not an abnormality. In fact, some of them intentionally attempt to increase the chances that their children will be deaf. I think inflicting a disability on another human should be a crime. But if one uses the popular “they think it’s normal, so they deserve civil rights, they’re here to stay” arguments, then on what basis would we deny these individuals the “right” to inflict deafness on others? Deafness is normal, so it’s their choice!! (I’m not saying gays are trying to inflict homosexuality on others; point is that being afraid to label an abnormality an abnormality is not always a harmless activity.)

Matt #1

Albatross wrote: I claimed that your opinion that sexual organs were designed to “go together” is a concept you created in your mind.

That’s just silly. Every biologist knows that the v—– and p—- (not sure if the blog software will allow the actual words, so playing it safe) are meant to go together.

Hey, I can just see it now: A ninth grader (who earlier learned that Joey has three daddies) is being taught human anatomy. The teacher explains how the p- goes into the v-. The ninth grader yells, “But that’s all in your head!!!” Please.

Regarding concepts in the mind: Perhaps your belief that sexual orientation and gender are naturally independent is a construct that you created in your mind.

More substitution:
“Blindness is an abnormality.”
“Oh, where’s your evidence?”
“Because humans have eyes.”
“Stevie Wonder does fine without them. Are you saying Stevie Wonder is abnormal?? Your belief that humans should use their eyes is just a concept in your mind.”

I have no answer to such logic. I’ll just continue to state the obvious: Blindness is an abnormality.

Matt #1

RE: Every biologist knows that the v—– and p—- are meant to go together.

Matt is a crypto-advocate of intelligent design.

Accoring to Matt, my choices are:

1. keep polygamy illegal, but concede that laws preventing equal civil rights can be made arbitrarily (the whims of culture and tradition).

2. demand justification for curtailing civil liberties and accept the legalization of polygamy.

If those are my only choices, it’s a no-brainer. I choose #2. I refuse to accept arbitrary discriminatory laws.

But, you guessed it, I don’t accept this dichotomy. I choose option 3:

3. Marriage is essentially a theological notion. It was a merging of church and state when the government decided it was going to decide who could and could not marry. The state should have nothing to do with it, and instead only administer legal contracts (such as tax status, sharing of bank accounts, hospital visitation rights, etc…). Leave marriage to the churches or private organizations. Let them argue about what is and is not a real marriage.

Governments can then cook up some rules to decide what happens when polygamist relationships break up. These rules can be made in a context where creating them neither condones nor condemns polygamy.

Dave C, why did you choose #2 (accept legalization) with same-sex marriage but chose #3 (state should have nothing to do with it) with polygamy? To be consistent, shouldn’t you choose #3 with both?

Yes, you did choose #2 with same-sex marriage. That is clear from all your posts above, including What a great civil rights victory! This is a big step toward the equality of all people under the law (an ideal laid down by Jefferson himself).

It’s odd that you didn’t get into “the state should have nothing to do with it” until the topic of polygamy came up. I guess I’m also wondering if you’ll say “What a great civil rights victory!” when polygamy is legalized.

Matt #1

I choose Dave C’s #3 as well. It is not at odds whith #2 since #3 accepts both gay marriage and polygamy in the sense that it’s not the goverment’s business. Personally, I don’t see any benefits to polygamy as it is generally practiced. It’s a real downer for women, but I’m not going to say that it should be illegal–only that no woman (or man) should be coerced into it for religious reasons.

Frankly, all this talk about polygamy and equine marriage is all beside the point. The point is, should gays be denied the same rights as straights. The answer is no.

Titania - thanks for getting back to the point of this discussion, gay rights. Yes, they should have the same rights as any other citizen.

Titania wrote: I choose Dave C’s #3 as well. It is not at odds whith #2 since #3 accepts both gay marriage and polygamy in the sense that it’s not the goverment’s business.

Marriages are approved by the government. #2 involves making it the government’s business. That contradicts #3.

Back on Dave’s #1:
concede that laws preventing equal civil rights can be made arbitrarily (the whims of culture and tradition)

“Preventing equal civil rights” is spin. That incorrectly assumes that gays have some inherent right to get married to begin with. You can’t be denied a right that doesn’t exist.

Likewise, a 30-yr-old man doesn’t have the right to marry his consenting 28-yr-old sister. They may protest and claim that we’re preventing them from exercising their “equal civil rights.” But I would disagree with their spin. Ditto your spin.

Matt #1

Matt says: “BTW, do you really think that abnormality is determined by the individual? That if a person doing/having X thinks X is normal, therefore X is normal? If so, substituting X with something less socially acceptable will quickly terminate that logical path.”

Matt, who and what determines “normalcy”?

RE: Marriages are approved by the government. #2 involves making it the government’s business. That contradicts #3.

Titania’s hierarchy of preferences is not logically incosistent. It simply reflects the fact that at any one time the alternatives are limited and you have to choose from amoung them. Expressing what you would choose from amoung the available alternatives does not necessarliy limit what you would choose from an expanded set of hypothetical alternatives.

That incorrectly assumes that gays have some inherent right to get married to begin with. You can’t be denied a right that doesn’t exist.

Nope, but you can create a right that doesn’t exist to begin with. And that creation would be based on the principle of equal rights.

One general formulation of the notion of justice is “treating like cases alike.” Another way of expressing this is “equal rights.” When a group is perceived to be significantly, even fundamentally, different from another, that distinction may be used to differentiate them in law (discriminate, either for or against).

However, over time, perceptions may change. “Like” may seem “unlike”, while “unlike” may come to seem “the same.” To a great extent, this is what happened with distinctions between races. And as “unlike” becomes “the same”, discrimination is seen as an injustice.

In the area of marriage, one over-all trend in the western world has been the triumph of individualistic, romantic relationships over marriages that are subservient to various collectivistic goals, such as biological reproduction or maintaining social and economic status. Arranged marriages are a thing of the past.

Since gays are fully capable of romantic relationships, and since individualistic love and romance is now the basis of marriage, not reproductive imperatives, gays seem more like straights. The “unlike” now seems “the same”. And what once might have seemed like an acceptable distinction now becomes an injustice.

Hence, we have created a new civil right. And once created, it cannot be denied. To do so would be an injustice.

I would prefer option 3 just in dealing with gay marriage or any marriage.

Civil rights equality would be ensured under #3 in that gays would receive equal civil rights (those that traditionally go along with marriage). Nobody gets “marriage” from the government.

I just don’t think #3 is politically feasible. I don’t know of any politician or organization that advocates for it.

I don’t like polygamy one iota. It’s demeaning, vile, non-egalitarian, and patriarchal. Yuck.

But I can’t think of a good smack-down argument against legalizing it at the moment.

On the bright side, the potential government recognition of such messages may be just what is needed for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

Alan wrote: …individualistic love and romance is now the basis of marriage…

So you’re not opposed to the adult brother marrying the consenting adult sister?

…and since individualistic love and romance [b]between a man and woman[/b] is now the basis of marriage…

I fixed the above statement by adding the part in bold.

Hence, we have created a new civil right. And once created, it cannot be denied. To do so would be an injustice.

Based on my correction above, there is no new right and no injustice. Just like there is no injustice when denying a bro and sis their non-existent right to get married.

Matt #1

RE: and since individualistic love and romance (blah, blah, balh) is now the basis of marriage…

Sorry, Matt, won’t work. You are right that Gays are not capable of reproduction. They are capable of romantic love. And that is what is important about marriage.

RE: So you’re not opposed to the adult brother marrying the consenting adult sister?

I didn’t argue against it. But I don’t have to. Tell me, why do you think its wrong?

Matt, I’m waiting. Why is it wrong for the adult brother to marry the consenting adult sister?

Is it because their parts don’t fit? Are they incapable of reproduction? What is it?

I think we are definitly on the edge of a slippery slope here. Maybe have been for a few mellenium.

And I’m still waiting to hear why polygamy is ‘abnormal’.

The “body parts” theory is quite lacking, in that, um…, appendages and orifices can go together in several different configurations regardless of one’s approval or disapproval. That’s biology. Your personal squick factor won’t change that. A committed relationship should be the only determining factor in marriage. Gender, reproduction, “morality” (i.e. religious bigotry) should be irrelevant.

As far as polygamy - having one spouse is enough of a headache. If someone wants more than one, they’re welcome to all the baggage that goes with it.

I can’t think of a single personal reason to object to legalizing polygamy. It’s not for me, but what do I care if others would want a multiple partner relationship? The obvious exception would be the recent FLDS compound raid, since the coercion of the underage “brides” falls much more under the category of rape.
But if consenting adults choose a multiple partner marriage, I can’t think of a single logical reason to call it wrong or immoral or even “abnormal”.

However, I can think of several reasons why legalizing polygamy would be a LEGAL nightmare. How in the world do you reinterpret divorce law to encompass a marriage of more than 2 persons? What if one spouse wants to divorce, but the other two (or more) do not, and want to stay married? How would child custody cases be settled? If one spouse is incapacitated or in the hospital, which one of the other spouses gets to decide on the course of care? What about power of attorney?

I’m not at all sure polygamist marriages are legally tenable.

Matt, I asked you for evidence to back up your assertion that homosexuality is a biological or physical abnormality. You have none, I see, so can you concede that this is your opinion, and that you are unable to substantiate your position with fact?

Alan said: “Gays are not capable of reproduction.”
This is only partially true, and applies to “normal” people (probably more-so). Gays do not lack the substance of reproduction.