Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

A victory in the fight for equal rights: DOMA and Prop. 8 take it on the chin

JasonJason God EmperorArrakis Moderator
edited June 2013 in General Banter
Since we've discussed this issue here quite a bit in the past, I though it was worth mentioning that the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, struck down the section of DOMA that barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states on the grounds that it violated the Fifth Amendment, as well as dismissed California's Prop. 8 appeal on the grounds that the supporters had no legal standing to challenge the ruling, tentatively allowing same-sex marriage in California once again.

However, since the justices essentially skirted the issue of the constitutionality of statewide bans, the ruling doesn't go so far as to require all states to legalize same-sex marriage, leaving 37 where same-sex marriage is still not allowed. While a victory in the fight for equal rights and full legal recognition for same-sex couples, the fight for true equality itself is far from over. It's a step in the right direction, and something for us to celebrate, but we still have a long way to go. As Nelson Mandela wrote in his 1995 autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom:
A man who takes away another man's freedom is a prisoner of hatred, he is locked behind the bars of prejudice and narrow-mindedness. I am not truly free if I am taking away someone else's freedom, just as surely as I am not free when my freedom is taken from me. The oppressed and the oppressor alike are robbed of their humanity.

riverflowVastmindZeropersonSillyPuttystavros388zombiegirlDavid
«1

Comments

  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Veteran
    I assume that those in the other 37 states will probably be able to use this ruling to bring the issue up again. I hope everyone who has fought for gay marriage rights in their home states will help the other states achieve the same status. My neighbors, who have been together for 25 years, will be married on August 10th in Minnesota. Cannot wait, so happy for them, and for everyone else who not only will be able to marry but will have the same federal rights as well. MN PRIDE is this weekend, that'll be an amazing party! But so many others still do not have the same rights, and we still need to fight for them, too.
    riverflowvinlynVastmind
  • Well, it certainly is a wonderful contrast to yesterday's ruling regarding the Voting Rights Act...
    Vastmind
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    riverflow said:

    Well, it certainly is a wonderful contrast to yesterday's ruling regarding the Voting Rights Act...

    Although I am a Democrat and have been a member of 2 national civil rights organizations, I do agree with yesterday's ruling because I do not think using data that is nearly 50 years old is appropriate. The struggle needs to continue, but on more solid ground for today's America.

  • VastmindVastmind Memphis, TN Veteran
    riverflow said:

    Well, it certainly is a wonderful contrast to yesterday's ruling regarding the Voting Rights Act...

    Don't get me started on voter ID ..... :grumble:
    riverflow
  • riverflowriverflow Veteran
    edited June 2013
    ^^^ then again, I heard there was quite a stir among some Americans regarding some recent Cheerios commercial with a depiction of an interracial couple in it...?
    Vastmind
  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Moderator
    Oh good grief..... :banghead:
  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Moderator
    That's frankly shameful and totally unacceptable. Good for 'Cheerios'.
    riverflow
  • personperson Where is my mind? 'Merica! Veteran
    I heard on NPR that this means that married gay couples can receive things like social security benefits, military pensions, file joint tax returns, not have to pay estate taxes upon the death of their spouse (the case that was argued in the supreme court), as well as other legal status issues.
    riverflowVastmindzombiegirl
  • VastmindVastmind Memphis, TN Veteran
    In response to the Cheerios ad....

    http://wearethe15percent.com/

    riverflow
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Veteran
    Married couples will receive all the same rights under federal law that hetero couples do. The catch is you have to be legally married in one of the 12 states that allows it. It's unfortunate they did not expand it to say that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional, but still getting rid of the big parts of DOMA are a big victory.

    It kind of sounds like a paperwork nightmare for the government though, lol. Of course I think it's worth it, but wow for having to separate which states allow gay marriage and which don't when couples are filing for taxes and SS benefits and such.
  • betaboybetaboy Veteran
    A long time ago, women were treated like commodities - a king may give his daughter away in exchange for land, or make some such compromise. Marriage arose to make such deals permanent and formal, that's all. So marriage is essentially a 'straight' thing, a business deal - so the gay folks are following into a trap by trying to mimic the straight folks.
  • personperson Where is my mind? 'Merica! Veteran
    betaboy said:

    A long time ago, women were treated like commodities - a king may give his daughter away in exchange for land, or make some such compromise. Marriage arose to make such deals permanent and formal, that's all. So marriage is essentially a 'straight' thing, a business deal - so the gay folks are following into a trap by trying to mimic the straight folks.

    Maybe that's what marriage was a long time ago, but its something different today.
    riverflow
  • betaboybetaboy Veteran
    person said:

    betaboy said:

    A long time ago, women were treated like commodities - a king may give his daughter away in exchange for land, or make some such compromise. Marriage arose to make such deals permanent and formal, that's all. So marriage is essentially a 'straight' thing, a business deal - so the gay folks are following into a trap by trying to mimic the straight folks.

    Maybe that's what marriage was a long time ago, but its something different today.
    No, it is not. The basic principle is the same, which is why most marriages end in divorce. It is not about love, more about commerce.
  • betaboy said:


    No, it is not. The basic principle is the same, which is why most marriages end in divorce. It is not about love, more about commerce.

    That isn't the reason I got married. And it isn't the reason why I got divorced.

    Some people, straight or otherwise, should be able to marry or live together-- that should be their choice to decide. Some people, straight or otherwise, should be able to divorce or break up-- that should be their choice to decide. What business is it of mine, yours, or anyone what goes on between a couple and how they relate or express their love for one another?

    There are certain legal advantages that marriage confers-- and it obviously makes sense why a couple would want to opt for marriage. You make decisions like this together. Love isn't some pure ideal untainted by the everyday world. Someone else's cynicism (or idealism) about what love is "really" about is irrelevant. It is their choice, and no one else's-- whatever their reasons might be.

    In the real world, you buy a home together, your spouse retires, your spouse lands in the hospital, you have children or adopt children, your spouse is in the military and you can move with him/her to where the spouse is stationed. This is a lot more difficult (and often impossible) to do when the option of marriage isn't available. Most serious couples want those legal options BECAUSE they love one another.
  • FlorianFlorian Veteran
    I want to marry three wives, so why shouldn't I have the right to do so? Does the State have the right to tell me I cannot do this? On what grounds? I want equal rights for polygamists. Time to start lobbying for my rights.

  • VastmindVastmind Memphis, TN Veteran
    ^^^ Go for it.
    Several states already 'turn their eye'.
    Lobbying has been going on for that already....for a long time.

    Make sure the wife is over 18.
    Make sure everyone is treated fairly.
    Make sure you can provide financially for everyone.
    Just sayin'.....
    riverflowstavros388
  • FlorianFlorian Veteran
    Naw, I'm not fit enough. But I do wonder what the grounds are for polygamy being illegal. Seems to me it's a curtailment of my precious 'rights'.
  • SilouanSilouan Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Whether someone is born or decides to be gay it is not for me to say. I will love them just the same.

    It remains to be seen what the actual effects of this ruling will have on our society 40 years from now. Maybe the quote @Jason provided from Nelson Mandela will eventually be compassionately understood to include those without voices who are taken from us in our silent holocaust.
    A man who takes away another man's freedom is a prisoner of hatred, he is locked behind the bars of prejudice and narrow-mindedness. I am not truly free if I am taking away someone else's freedom, just as surely as I am not free when my freedom is taken from me. The oppressed and the oppressor alike are robbed of their humanity.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    riverflow said:

    betaboy said:


    No, it is not. The basic principle is the same, which is why most marriages end in divorce. It is not about love, more about commerce.

    That isn't the reason I got married. ...Most serious couples want those legal options BECAUSE they love one another.
    I agree, @riverflow. I can't think of a single married couple that I know -- except for an aunt and uncle back in my childhood (and I'm 63 now) -- who got married for a reason other than love and wanting to be together. Sometimes the love fades over time, but "commerce" is not the reason most people get married.

    riverflow
  • personperson Where is my mind? 'Merica! Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Florian said:

    I want to marry three wives, so why shouldn't I have the right to do so? Does the State have the right to tell me I cannot do this? On what grounds? I want equal rights for polygamists. Time to start lobbying for my rights.

    If the standard is consenting adults then yes polygamy should also be included. I think it leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths because of the way it has been practiced where young girls are forced into a marriage. But if several adults want to have a polygamous marriage then I'm fine with that.

    It may come down the pike some day but there seem to be far less people interested in that arrangement than there are gay couples. Plus there is at least one legal marriage involved so that tax benefits and other legal issues aren't so pressing.
    riverflowstavros388
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    Florian said:

    I want to marry three wives, so why shouldn't I have the right to do so? Does the State have the right to tell me I cannot do this? On what grounds? I want equal rights for polygamists. Time to start lobbying for my rights.

    Personally, I have nothing against polygamy as long as it's a truly equal partnership (e.g., not distributionally unfair to women, such as forms of polygamy practiced within cultures, religions, etc. dominated by patriarchy where a man is allowed to marry multiple women but not vice versa). I think consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they like, same sex, opposite sex, multiple sexes and partners, whatever. But frankly, I'm tired of people bringing up polygamy whenever gay marriage is discussed. The reason is that, as someone once put it on another forum, "It's pretty obvious that homosexuals, as a class, are discriminated against by marriage statutes which exclude them, whereas people who wish to marry multiple [people] ... are undefined and practically undefinable as a class." The two issues aren't the same, in my opinion, and shouldn't be conflated.
    riverflowperson
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    Silouan said:

    Whether someone is born or decides to be gay it is not for me to say. I will love them just the same.

    That's mighty nice of you.
    Silouan said:

    It remains to be seen what the actual effects of this ruling will have on our society 40 years from now. Maybe the quote @Jason provided from Nelson Mandela will eventually be compassionately understood to include those without voices who are taken from us in our silent holocaust.

    A man who takes away another man's freedom is a prisoner of hatred, he is locked behind the bars of prejudice and narrow-mindedness. I am not truly free if I am taking away someone else's freedom, just as surely as I am not free when my freedom is taken from me. The oppressed and the oppressor alike are robbed of their humanity.
    While a clever twist on the OP, I'm not sure I see the connection between same-sex marriage and abortion. That's an entirely different discussion and has no relevance to the topic of this thread.
    riverflow
  • SilouanSilouan Veteran
    @Jason
    Being nice has nothing to do with it. It is what I personally believe.

    Yes, conventionally they are separate but ultimately not. If someone can reference racism to the same issue with regards to equal rights how is the inclusion of the rights of those human beings who are vulnerable and have no voice be any different then?

    That same reference even infers that those opposed to gay marriage are going to be proven to be stupid and the same as racists. That was a pretty blatant inference that warrants no rebuff for going outside the bounds of the topic of the thread?

    In my opinion a little bit prejudiced and hypocritical really.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited June 2013
    Silouan said:

    @Jason
    Yes, conventionally they are separate but ultimately not. If someone can reference racism to the same issue with regards to equal rights how is the inclusion of the rights of those human beings who are vulnerable and have no voice be any different then?

    That same reference even infers that those opposed to gay marriage are going to be proven to be stupid and the same as racists. That was a pretty blatant inference that warrants no rebuff for going outside the bounds of the topic of the thread?

    In my opinion a little bit prejudiced and hypocritical really.

    I disagree. For starters, we're talking about law here, specifically the legal oppression of gays and lesbians and the legality of marriage as a civil contract; not whether an unborn fetus is legally a person and has all the rights afforded by that status. If you want to have a discussion about that, by all means, start a new thread and debate away.

    As for the connection between race and sexual orientation in this context, I think that sexual orientation should be considered a 'suspect category' in equal protection jurisprudence along with race because they're similar in that they're both 'minorities' that have at one time or another been unable to effectively use the political process to insure fair treatment from the majority. As Kenneth D. Wald notes in his review of The Constitutional Underclass: Gays, Lesbians, and the Failure of Class-Based Equal Protection:
    What Tocqueville called "majority tyranny" is presumed most likely to be visited upon groups "who suffer from prejudice, are unable to form effective political coalitions, and are often singled out for especially unfavorable treatment by the hostile majority" (26). Laws that target such groups—what later became "suspect" classes—are in principle subject to especially rigorous review under "strict scrutiny" and are unlikely to pass judicial muster. In a series of post-CAROLENE decisions that developed less coherently than any summary can convey, the categories of race, national origin, and alien status were recognized as suspect classifications that would generate strict scrutiny. By contrast, laws that burden other groups are normally upheld with minimal scrutiny and maximum deference to the legislative branch. The Court subsequently created an intermediate category of "quasi-suspect" classes based on gender and legitimacy. Laws that burden such groups receive heightened scrutiny to insure there is some discernible "rational" purpose embedded in them. In practice, the contrast between suspect and quasi-suspect classes has become a distinction without a difference, producing what amounts to a two-tiered system.
    Considering the amount of discrimination and unfair legal treatment that gays and lesbians have endured throughout the years as a class, including when it comes to the issue of marriage and prohibitions that aren't unlike the inter-racial marriage bans of the Jim Crow era, I'm of the opinion that sexual orientation deserves to be placed in the same classification as race; and I wholeheartedly believe that laws targeting gays and lesbians should be subject to the same rigorous review under 'strict scrutiny' as those targeting race.

    I see you're point about the relevance of arguing for equal rights for unborn fetuses as if they're legal persons, which is a fair argument to make even though I'd personally argue against the idea of unborn fetuses being legal persons; but we're talking about same-sex marriage here and I'd like to keep it that way. I'm sorry if that's prejudiced and hypocritical on my part.
    riverflow
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Veteran
    I could care less if people (adults) want to marry more than one person. I know people who practice polygamy, and they are just people. This belief that allowing gay people to marry will lead to crazy sexually deviant marriage practices is just ridiculous. They said the same thing, word-for-word when people were fighting for bi-racial marriage. People are still not allowed to marry toasters, goats, or their children.


    @betaboy wow, you must be young. I find that to be a common view in people who are currently in college, or just finished college. Then they start living their lives and realize that there is more to life than the "everyone lives under THE MAN" view that is so popular in college. I didn't marry my husband out of commerce or business deal. He most certainly didn't, since all he got out of that deal was to take on 2 kids that weren't his, and a buttload of baggage and financial expense to go along with it. People marry for all sorts of reasons. What those reasons are are none of my, or any one else's, business. I don't pretend to understand the complexities that go into everyone's relationships. Because, why should I? Why should anyone else care why I married my husband? Marriage is only a sham or a trap if the 2 people within it make it so. Also, even a 50% divorce rate is not "most marriages." Many marriages end (that I have seen, including my parents) because the people enter into marriage not being whole themselves, and expect the other person to complete them. It doesn't work that way.

    @Silouan I'm sure everyone who is gay appreciates you saying "I love you, but I don't think you deserve the same rights as I do."
  • SilouanSilouan Veteran
    @Jason
    Agreed. Its your topic.

    @karasti
    It seems you are assuming I'm opposed to the ruling. I never said I did.
  • FlorianFlorian Veteran
    Jason said:

    Florian said:

    I want to marry three wives, so why shouldn't I have the right to do so? Does the State have the right to tell me I cannot do this? On what grounds? I want equal rights for polygamists. Time to start lobbying for my rights.

    Personally, I have nothing against polygamy as long as it's a truly equal partnership (e.g., not distributionally unfair to women, such as forms of polygamy practiced within cultures, religions, etc. dominated by patriarchy where a man is allowed to marry multiple women but not vice versa). I think consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they like, same sex, opposite sex, multiple sexes and partners, whatever. But frankly, I'm tired of people bringing up polygamy whenever gay marriage is discussed. The reason is that, as someone once put it on another forum, "It's pretty obvious that homosexuals, as a class, are discriminated against by marriage statutes which exclude them, whereas people who wish to marry multiple [people] ... are undefined and practically undefinable as a class." The two issues aren't the same, in my opinion, and shouldn't be conflated.

    'Discriminated against'? Well yes. Marriage is a discrimination against people who cannot get married. It still is and it always will be. It's all word-games, this stuff about discrimination and exclusion.

    But let's not argue about it. I was only making a protest against all the political cortrectness. We have made this irreversible change to our society at a cost, and we will never all agree about whether the cost was worth it.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited June 2013
    Florian said:

    Jason said:

    Florian said:

    I want to marry three wives, so why shouldn't I have the right to do so? Does the State have the right to tell me I cannot do this? On what grounds? I want equal rights for polygamists. Time to start lobbying for my rights.

    Personally, I have nothing against polygamy as long as it's a truly equal partnership (e.g., not distributionally unfair to women, such as forms of polygamy practiced within cultures, religions, etc. dominated by patriarchy where a man is allowed to marry multiple women but not vice versa). I think consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they like, same sex, opposite sex, multiple sexes and partners, whatever. But frankly, I'm tired of people bringing up polygamy whenever gay marriage is discussed. The reason is that, as someone once put it on another forum, "It's pretty obvious that homosexuals, as a class, are discriminated against by marriage statutes which exclude them, whereas people who wish to marry multiple [people] ... are undefined and practically undefinable as a class." The two issues aren't the same, in my opinion, and shouldn't be conflated.

    'Discriminated against'? Well yes. Marriage is a discrimination against people who cannot get married. It still is and it always will be. It's all word-games, this stuff about discrimination and exclusion.

    But let's not argue about it. I was only making a protest against all the political cortrectness. We have made this irreversible change to our society at a cost, and we will never all agree about whether the cost was worth it.
    I'm not sure what the societal 'cost' of allowing gay couples to marry is besides irritating people who don't think they shouldn't have the same rights and opportunities as hetero couples, but I definitely think it's worth it to reverse and/or repeal discriminatory laws targeting a person's sexual orientation, just as I think it was for getting rid of those targeting race. And I'd go so far as to argue that this issue isn't about semantics or word games, but about something much more concrete, i.e., laws that single out a specific group in society (e.g., gays and lesbians) for especially unfavorable treatment.
    riverflow
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Florian said:

    ...It's all word-games, this stuff about discrimination and exclusion.

    ..

    No, discrimination and exclusion is not just "word-games".

    riverflowstavros388
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Veteran
    LOL @Florian you should tell that to all the people who are, and who have been, discriminated against. "We withhold human rights from you and exclude you from equal participation in our society because you look different, but, it's really just word-games, it really doesn't happen." Good luck with that argument. I am curious who you think fits into the group of people who "cannot get married" versus those who choose not to get married. Who exactly is unable to marry that you are referring to in your comment?

    @Silouan My apologies. I was thinking back to a previous conversation about the topic from several months ago and I think I confused you with another user.
    riverflow
  • karasti said:

    Married couples will receive all the same rights under federal law that hetero couples do. The catch is you have to be legally married in one of the 12 states that allows it.

    Does that include civil unions? NJ, NY, CT among others have civil unions, which carry all the rights and responsibilities of state civil marriage, just a different name. I wonder what happens then. NJ Gov. Christie is adamant about not signing a marriage bill (he's a good Catholic :rolleyes: ), and I don't think the state legislature has enough power to override him. This could go to those state supreme courts again.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    A pedant writes;

    YOU infer HE/SHE implies.
  • riverflowriverflow Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Florian said:

    We have made this irreversible change to our society at a cost, and we will never all agree about whether the cost was worth it.

    What cost? It hasn't cost me anything. Has it cost you something?
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    Florian said:

    Jason said:

    Florian said:

    I want to marry three wives, so why shouldn't I have the right to do so? Does the State have the right to tell me I cannot do this? On what grounds? I want equal rights for polygamists. Time to start lobbying for my rights.

    Personally, I have nothing against polygamy as long as it's a truly equal partnership (e.g., not distributionally unfair to women, such as forms of polygamy practiced within cultures, religions, etc. dominated by patriarchy where a man is allowed to marry multiple women but not vice versa). I think consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they like, same sex, opposite sex, multiple sexes and partners, whatever. But frankly, I'm tired of people bringing up polygamy whenever gay marriage is discussed. The reason is that, as someone once put it on another forum, "It's pretty obvious that homosexuals, as a class, are discriminated against by marriage statutes which exclude them, whereas people who wish to marry multiple [people] ... are undefined and practically undefinable as a class." The two issues aren't the same, in my opinion, and shouldn't be conflated.

    'Discriminated against'? Well yes. Marriage is a discrimination against people who cannot get married. It still is and it always will be. It's all word-games, this stuff about discrimination and exclusion.

    But let's not argue about it. I was only making a protest against all the political cortrectness. We have made this irreversible change to our society at a cost, and we will never all agree about whether the cost was worth it.
    I am not getting the grounds for your concerns here Florian ..seriously..
  • black_teablack_tea Explorer
    betaboy said:

    person said:

    betaboy said:

    A long time ago, women were treated like commodities - a king may give his daughter away in exchange for land, or make some such compromise. Marriage arose to make such deals permanent and formal, that's all. So marriage is essentially a 'straight' thing, a business deal - so the gay folks are following into a trap by trying to mimic the straight folks.

    Maybe that's what marriage was a long time ago, but its something different today.
    No, it is not. The basic principle is the same, which is why most marriages end in divorce. It is not about love, more about commerce.
    Nope. I know quite a few married people (friends, relatives, coworkers etc) and none of them married for financial reasons. Are there people out there who marry for money? Sure, but that no longer defines what marraige is. Look at it this way, women now have many opportunities in the workforce and do not require someone to take care of all their financial needs. Yet many people get married anyway -- because they feel genuine affection for their partner and want to formalize that. There are many reasons why marraiges fail that have little or nothing to do with what you suggest, and plenty of marraiges don't break up at all. You are falling into the same trap as many of the anti gay marraige folks in that you are trying to apply a single definition to what marraige is rather than realizing that marraige is many different things to different people.
    riverflowStraight_ManCitta
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Veteran
    @Jainarayan NY actually has gay marriage, not civil unions. Hawaii, CO, NJ and Illinois I believe are the civil union states. It will (as far as I have read so far) depend on the exact wording of the state laws as to whether they will be federally recognized as marriages but it seemed that the leaning was towards yes, they will be included as they go through basically the same process as those who are "married" the word is just different. I don't think it's been entirely worked through so we will have to see.
  • ZeroZero Veteran
    Jason said:


    laws that single out a specific group in society (e.g., gays and lesbians) for especially unfavorable treatment.

    This simple point is a serious stumbling block for the opposition.
    It should lead a reasonably sensible person to consider the possibility of error.
  • FlorianFlorian Veteran
    I meant to say (of course) that talk of discrimination and exclusion were word-games in relation to gay marriage. not in all contexts. We could say that we have discriminated against people who wanted to keep marriage as a traditional relationship between men, women and their children. Yes, yes, it would be a silly argument. But it's a silly argument in both directions.

    If we do not see that such a change comes at a cost then this may be a case of lack of analysis. All social change comes at a cost. Omelettes and eggs and all that. It's just a question of whether the benefits outweigh the disbenefits. In this case some say yes, some no. I just happen to be on the no side, as are the gay members of my family.

    But the horse has bolted. No point if discussing whether to close the door.

    Sorry for causing trouble.


  • JainarayanJainarayan Veteran
    edited June 2013
    karasti said:

    @Jainarayan NY actually has gay marriage, not civil unions.

    Yes that's right, I forgot. Thanks. And like anything else, we'll have to wait to see the outcome.
  • What is amazing to me is the disparity between nations of the world on how gays are being treated. In some African nations that are pretty much Evangelical Christian theocracies now thanks to the efforts of fundamentalist missionaries from the USA, being gay or "promoting the gay lifestyle" is illegal. Russia has also gone that route thanks to their own fundamentalist churches. And of course we have the Muslim nations where people are stoned to death for being gay. At the same time, we have nations where gay marriage is now considered nothing special by most people of this generation. It's like there are two worlds.
    riverflowVastmindstavros388
  • NeleNele Veteran
    On the subject of love vs commerce as the reason for marriage: my Indian women friends, even the modern ones who married for love, say that arranged marriages have a higher success rate.
  • SilouanSilouan Veteran
    Perhaps but thank you @karasti

    My wife and I had left the Church for a while over conflicts we had with some others about adverse attitudes towards gays and lesbians in mistaking this attitude for the teachings of the Church. This is similar to confusing Muslim killing Buddhists as representative of what Buddhism teaches.

    It was during this struggle that we were able to resolve our spiritual and political conflicts. Our spiritual foundation acquired from the fathers is that is not for us to judge whether someone is born or decides to be gay, as it is beyond our measure. Our purpose in life is simply to enlarge our hearts. We were also counseled that to leave the Church and not be there for others less spiritually mature would actually show a lack of love.

    I'm a member of the Green Party and I firmly support the separation of Church and State. I'm not opposed to the US Supreme Court decision and accept it as just based on what I currently know about it, as I'm sure there a number of stipulations, but that doesn't mean I believe that same-sex marriage is holy. I also don't believe that receiving communion outside the Church is holy either for that matter. These are beliefs that for me are not externalized or based on a legalistic interpretation of dogma, but something else entirely.

    Also, the US Supreme Court decision is not going to dictate, for example, to the Orthodox Church its theology any more than it is going to dictate the rendering of karmic law on sexual misconduct and inappropriate sexual behavior. To make a forced imposition would be unconstitutional and a violation of freedom of religion.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    Florian said:

    I meant to say (of course) that talk of discrimination and exclusion were word-games in relation to gay marriage. not in all contexts. We could say that we have discriminated against people who wanted to keep marriage as a traditional relationship between men, women and their children. Yes, yes, it would be a silly argument. But it's a silly argument in both directions.

    Yes, it's silly because we're not specifically targeting hetero couples for especially unfavorable or unequal treatment under the law; we're not trying to deprive hetero couples from obtaining the host of privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits that the civil contract of marriage confers; nor are we preventing hetero couples from marrying, forcing them to marry a non-hetero partner, or forcing churches to preform same-sex marriages. So to say that laws banning or refusing to recognize same-sex marriages isn't discrimination makes me wonder if you truly understand what that word means.
    Florian said:

    If we do not see that such a change comes at a cost then this may be a case of lack of analysis. All social change comes at a cost. Omelettes and eggs and all that. It's just a question of whether the benefits outweigh the disbenefits. In this case some say yes, some no. I just happen to be on the no side, as are the gay members of my family.

    Again, what disbenefits? What is the 'cost' of granting same-sex couples equal access to the host of privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits that the civil contract of marriage confers?
    Zero
  • SilouanSilouan Veteran
    @Jason

    How long is a piece of rope? Whatever the costs may be they haven't been revealed yet. We shall see over time, but there are always costs. I think it would be hard to dispute that our very own existence and interests don't displace in some manner that of other beings, but stating this doesn't mean the decision should not have been made.

    Perhaps we can speculate, though we can only at best make forecasts conditionally, and say that there will be a decrease in tax revenue and as a result social programs will be effected or there will be a rise in legal costs for instance.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    Silouan said:

    @Jason

    How long is a piece of rope? Whatever the costs may be they haven't been revealed yet. We shall see over time, but there are always costs. I think it would be hard to dispute that our very own existence and interests don't displace in some manner that of other beings, but stating this doesn't mean the decision should not have been made.

    Perhaps we can speculate, though we can only at best make forecasts conditionally, and say that there will be a decrease in tax revenue and as a result social programs will be effected or there will be a rise in legal costs for instance.

    Alright. For the sake of argument, then, let's take a similar situation with the repeal of Jim Crow-era laws banning interracial marriages. What was the 'cost'? What were the disbenefits? It's been well over 40 years, so that should be enough time for some of the costs to be revealed. Did interracial marriages suppress tax revenue, inflate legal costs, etc.? I'm jut curious by what Florian, or anybody else, means by 'costs' in this context since it seems to be denoting some sort of negative, societal repercussions.
    riverflow
  • aMattaMatt Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Jason said:

    Again, what disbenefits? What is the 'cost' of granting same-sex couples equal access to the host of privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits that the civil contract of marriage confers?

    The cost is that it undermines the meaning of marriage to many people. How much of their view is rooted in that? How much will they lose in being forced to accept another's view?

    For instance, when we abolished slavery through war and consolidated power to the central government, it plunged the south into poverty, set up racial resentments, and removed most of each states' power.

    I feel it is our responsibility to pay such costs, which includes working to minimize the conflict that arises. We can start by accepting the suffering that will arise from those who have attached marriage to man+woman, because it is real for them. To say they just have to get over it, or shouldn't have that attachment is disrespectful to our own compassion.
    Florian
  • SilouanSilouan Veteran
    edited June 2013
    @Jason

    It is not my intention or interest to argue about any types of costs, particularly if not founded on an analysis of hard data. I'm just acknowledging the fact that there will be costs in some form or another to produce the expected benefits, and what they are and how they are absorbed will be revealed over time.

    If you want to argue things of this nature I'm sure there are sociologists and economists that are more than capable, and though this is your topic you appear to me to be a little overly attached emotionally with much of what some others state to be perceived as negative or in opposition. You stated that you were tired of certain kind of responses, so that in itself implies to me that you are already conditioned to respond in a certain manner.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.