Gay Marriage and other problems homosexuals face

[monster]

Originally Posted by Konakaga

See if you're just telling them once that's fine, but you're making it a daily habit to tell them they're wrong every time you see them, or one of those preachers who spend time day after day protesting how they're wrong.

Then I would argue telling someone they're wrong ALL the time, being demanding, and stubborn about it is a form of verbal abuse, it's certainly capable of being just as mental damaging especially to younger people, which is why I'd call it abuse. Especially on something beyond their control like sexual preference.

So if you know someone who is continually doing something that you believe is wrong, do you think telling them only once (or a limited number of times) is the appropriate way to do it?

Obviously, but Equality when it comes to being equally treated under the law is pretty clear what is it, or so I would think anyways.

I think everyone can agree to equal treatment under the law. The difference is in what that entails. On one hand, you have people who think that marriage is a union between two consenting adults while, on the other hand, you have people who think that marriage is a union between two consenting adults of the opposite sex. (Not to mention all other views on marriage.)

Depending on your view on marriage, equal treatment under the law can mean different things. So as much as one side would consider themselves fighting for equality, I would have to respectfully disagree on that assertion.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by monster

I think everyone can agree to equal treatment under the law. The difference is in what that entails. On one hand, you have people who think that marriage is a union between two consenting adults while, on the other hand, you have people who think that marriage is a union between two consenting adults of the opposite sex. (Not to mention all other views on marriage.)

Depending on your view on marriage, equal treatment under the law can mean different things. So as much as one side would consider themselves fighting for equality, I would have to respectfully disagree on that assertion.

On this point, my father (as an example) says that he has no problem with every single equal legal, financial, and societal benefit extended to everyone equally. But his big hang-up is about using the word "marriage" because he's religious, and to him "marriage" is something sacred.

I guess I personally take a more... flexible view. Marriage is what you put into it. There are plenty of people who have the audacity to go "before god and these witnesses" and swear "'till death do us part"... and then get divorced for petty reasons. Heck, including my own parents! I don't think the gender of the participants "defiles the institution of marriage" any more than the fact that people are routinely lying at the alter, cheating on their partners, and leaving kids in broken homes because of the (often) stupid childish squabbles and indiscretions of their parents. "Let those who are without sin cast the first stone."

So basically I say that if people are going to take the commitment truly seriously and work every day to live up to their vows (and that's why they want to get married in the first place), that's much more important than their gender. I feel like people who are so focused on this "gender taboo" are losing sight of what it is they're ultimately fighting for (or what is actually worth fighting for).

[monster]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

On this point, my father (as an example) says that he has no problem with every single equal legal, financial, and societal benefit extended to everyone equally. But his big hang-up is about using the word "marriage" because he's religious, and to him "marriage" is something sacred.

I guess I personally take a more... flexible view. Marriage is what you put into it. There are plenty of people who have the audacity to go "before god and these witnesses" and swear "'till death do us part"... and then get divorced for petty reasons. Heck, including my own parents! I don't think the gender of the participants "defiles the institution of marriage" any more than the fact that people are routinely lying at the alter, cheating on their partners, and leaving kids in broken homes because of the (often) stupid childish squabbles and indiscretions of their parents. "Let those who are without sin cast the first stone."

So basically I say that if people are going to take the commitment truly seriously and work every day to live up to their vows (and that's why they want to get married in the first place), that's much more important than their gender. I feel like people who are so focused on this "gender taboo" are losing sight of what it is they're ultimately fighting for (or what is actually worth fighting for).

Fidelity and commitment are important, and not just in a marriage, but also in any other type of meaningful relationship. So I agree that taking a stance against same-sex marriage while not caring enough about following through with one's marital commitments would not be a good thing.

That said, from a certain perspective, it's not about choosing one aspect of marriage over another.

[Kotohono]

Originally Posted by monster

So if you know someone who is continually doing something that you believe is wrong, do you think telling them only once (or a limited number of times) is the appropriate way to do it?

Yes I do, if someone was a different religion than you would try to convert them every single day or think it's appropriate to do so?

Also further more such behavior is insanity, imo. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein.

Because if you tell them 12 times and nothing changes, why would you think further telling them would accomplish anything at all?

Originally Posted by monster

I think everyone can agree to equal treatment under the law. The difference is in what that entails. On one hand, you have people who think that marriage is a union between two consenting adults while, on the other hand, you have people who think that marriage is a union between two consenting adults of the opposite sex. (Not to mention all other views on marriage.)

Depending on your view on marriage, equal treatment under the law can mean different things. So as much as one side would consider themselves fighting for equality, I would have to respectfully disagree on that assertion.

No, it does not depend on that all. Equality under the law is clearly equal for all period no ifs and/or buts while what you describe is getting to "separate but equal" land for each territory for each gender and that's clearly not what equality as ruled by the supreme court multiple times.

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

So basically I say that if people are going to take the commitment truly seriously and work every day to live up to their vows (and that's why they want to get married in the first place), that's much more important than their gender. I feel like people who are so focused on this "gender taboo" are losing sight of what it is they're ultimately fighting for (or what is actually worth fighting for).

Also this is a really good point I agree fully.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Konakaga

Yes I do, if someone was a different religion than you would try to convert them every single day or think it's appropriate to do so?

Well, if you think it's important for them and you're willing to commit to it, then sure. Of course, I wouldn't suggest doing it every single day to the same person or to the point where that's all/mostly all you're doing to/with them, especially if you know them personally.

Also further more such behavior is insanity, imo. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein.

Because if you tell them 12 times and nothing changes, why would you think further telling them would accomplish anything at all?

Trying again to accomplish the same goal does not mean having to use the exact same means again. As long as there is a possibility to communicate, there is a possibility of a breakthrough for either side.

No, it does not depend on that all. Equality under the law is clearly equal for all period no ifs and/or buts while what you describe is getting to "separate but equal" land for each territory for each gender and that's clearly not what equality as ruled by the supreme court multiple times.

I don't see how you get to separate but equal from my post.

Equality under the law must have a context to it. It means you cannot discriminate based on things that have no relevance, like paying workers differently based on ethnicity. But you can certainly discriminate based on relevant factors, like paying workers differently based on job requirements and performance.

So the issue with marriage equality isn't about mere equality, but about defining what marriage is and, therefore, what factors are relevant to it to determine how one can be treated equally under the law with respect to marriage.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by monster

Fidelity and commitment are important, and not just in a marriage, but also in any other type of meaningful relationship. So I agree that taking a stance against same-sex marriage while not caring enough about following through with one's marital commitments would not be a good thing.

That said, from a certain perspective, it's not about choosing one aspect of marriage over another.

You're right. It's a bit of a false equivalency on my part -- at least, it would be seen as a false equivalency from those who feel the way they do for religious reasons. But I guess my view in general is that there are more important things to do than to be casting stones.

The one conciliation I guess I would offer is... I don't feel it's a good idea for a couple try to compel/force religious leaders (ordained ministers, etc.) to marry them if they aren't aligned with the institution's beliefs or stated policies (even if the couple may be within their legal rights to press the issue). There should always be others who are perfectly willing to marry them anyway, so dragging people kicking and screaming on this issue isn't going to engender goodwill on any side. Sometimes there's wisdom in "live and let live".

(I do realize the above may be a bit Pollyanna in a way, but I just don't think that -- generally speaking -- anything good would come from confrontations about this. Maybe there would be some cases where it's unavoidable, though. Perhaps I'm just trying to avoid conflict.)

[monster]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

You're right. It's a bit of a false equivalency on my part -- at least, it would be seen as a false equivalency from those who feel the way they do for religious reasons. But I guess my view in general is that there are more important things to do than to be casting stones.

Well, like I said earlier, I don't believe in casting stones either way. (Not that everyone would feel the same way.)

The one conciliation I guess I would offer is... I don't feel that religious leaders (ordained ministers, etc.) should be legally-compelled/forced to marry a couple if that couple isn't aligned with their institution's beliefs or stated policies. There will always be others who are perfectly willing to marry them anyway, so dragging people kicking and screaming on this issue isn't going to engender goodwill on any side.

I'm of two minds about this.

On the one hand, I hope that is indeed the case.

On the other hand, I'm not familiar enough with their actual role within the legal system to know whether this particular exemption would be lawful.

[Kotohono]

Originally Posted by monster

Well, if you think it's important for them and you're willing to commit to it, then sure. Of course, I wouldn't suggest doing it every single day to the same person or to the point where that's all/mostly all you're doing to/with them, especially if you know them personally. Trying again to accomplish the same goal does not mean having to use the exact same means again. As long as there is a possibility to communicate, there is a possibility of a breakthrough for either side.

Or you could be a rational person and accept that not everyone is going to have the same believes as you just like people do for all sorts of things, and just leave it alone after the first few times because most people would realize it's pointless and probably getting annoying to them by then before it starts to turn damaging.

Originally Posted by monster

I don't see how you get to separate but equal from my post.

Equality under the law must have a context to it. It means you cannot discriminate based on things that have no relevance, like paying workers differently based on ethnicity. But you can certainly discriminate based on relevant factors, like paying workers differently based on job requirements and performance.

So the issue with marriage equality isn't about mere equality, but about defining what marriage is and, therefore, what factors are relevant to it to determine how one can be treated equally under the law with respect to marriage.

No it's extremely clear, if have you ever looked at the history of the USA .

It's the exact same case and logic that was used to try to keep the interracial marriage ban, allowing segregation in place, or numerous other cases as "equality". Men being able to marry women, but women not creates a men have a right that women do not, and reverse which is why it's a "separate but equal" deal because they do not have equal rights under the law.

Which failed then and which is why the same arguments fell apart here because separate but equal will never fly under the law.


It has nothing to do with "redefinition" or "defining it", that word is choice purely exists to create a stir among conservatives & such to make their fear-monger slipper sloppy fallacies tactics to scare people against it seem convincing as in actuality the USA Constitution (nor it's Amendments) never defined marriage thus nothing was changed. DOMA was the only thing do so which happened ruled unconstitutional by one of those amendments and it was merely an act, not a Constitutional Amendment, so I'm not acknowledging that point further because it was never a legitimate argument when referring to legal issues in the USA because it's a fallacy.

Originally Posted by monster

On the one hand, I hope that is indeed the case.

On the other hand, I'm not familiar enough with their actual role within the legal system to know whether this particular exemption would be lawful.

The U.S. Constitution prohibits a religious test for public office in Article 6: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust."

Hence allowing religious exemption for someone in a public position like this where they've taken an oath is highly problematic as general thing because it would allow states a tricky loophole, but might be ok on more case to case basis for those whom are directly related to a church only.

Case & Point: Texas
Same-Sex Marriage in Texas: Democrat Files Complaint Against Attorney General for SCOTUS Ruling Obstruction

In a statement published on the Texas Democrats website, Maxey wrote, “It’s irresponsible for an elected official -- and a lawyer -- to tell other elected officials to break the law. He’s misleading county and state officials based on a false premise that they can discriminate against same-sex couples.”
Noting that the Supreme Court was clear on their decision to let same-sex couple marry, Maxey added, “Paxton took an oath to defend and protect the constitution, he must comply with the court’s decision.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Konakaga

Or you could be a rational person and accept that not everyone is going to have the same believes as you just like people do for all sorts of things, and just leave it alone after the first few times because most people would realize it's pointless and probably getting annoying to them by then before it starts to turn damaging.

Like I said, I wouldn't suggest annoying them intentionally or to constantly do it without breaks in between. But that has nothing to do with giving up either. If it's really important and if it has eternal ramification, then one lifetime here on Earth isn't a lot of effort by comparison.

It's the exact same case and logic that was used to try to keep the interracial marriage ban, allowing segregation in place, or numerous other cases as "equality". Men being able to marry women, but women not creates a men have a right that women do not, and reverse which is why it's a "separate but equal" deal because they do not have equal rights under the law.

Which failed then and which is why the same arguments fell apart here because separate but equal will never fly under the law.


It has nothing to do with "redefinition" or "defining it", that word is choice purely exists to create a stir among conservatives & such to make their fear-monger slipper sloppy fallacies tactics to scare people against it seem convincing as in actuality the USA Constitution (nor it's Amendments) never defined marriage thus nothing was changed. DOMA was the only thing do so which happened ruled unconstitutional by one of those amendments and it was merely an act, not a Constitutional Amendment, so I'm not acknowledging that point further because it was never a legitimate argument when referring to legal issues in the USA because it's a fallacy.

You do realize that when you have interracial marriage you still have husband and wife. don't you? When you have interreligious marriage, you still have husband and wife. When you have same-sex marriage, you don't have husband and wife. So that's a clear redefinition of marriage in the latter part.

Those other earlier prohibitions fail without having to redefine marriage because their inequality is self-evident with respect to marriage. Prohibitions against same-sex marriage only show inequality when you no longer put meaning to having both a husband and a wife in a marriage.

The U.S. Constitution prohibits a religious test for public office in Article 6: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust."

Hence allowing religious exemption for someone in a public position like this where they've taken an oath is highly problematic as general thing because it would allow states a tricky loophole, but might be ok on more case to case basis for those whom are directly related to a church only.

Case & Point: Texas
Same-Sex Marriage in Texas: Democrat Files Complaint Against Attorney General for SCOTUS Ruling Obstruction

Yes, I was afraid of something like that being the case.

[Akito Kinomoto]

If opponents of same-sex marriage don't want marriage to be redefined, then call it something else but treat it as equally under the law as marriage. If whatever you call it supporters agree to this, there should be no problem for opponents of same-sex marriage since whatever you call it doesn't redefine marriage; it extends equal rights.

Historically, separate but equal has been anything but equal. Maybe this philosophy can be applied in an unprecedented way. Hopefully.

But it might be too late to argue over definitions
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...glish/marriage
The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage

Furthermore, the definition of anti-hero doesn't change the definition of hero.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kinomoto

If opponents of same-sex marriage don't want marriage to be redefined, then call it something else but treat it as equally under the law as marriage. If whatever you call it supporters agree to this, there should be no problem for opponents of same-sex marriage since whatever you call it doesn't redefine marriage; it extends equal rights.

Historically, separate but equal has been anything but equal. Maybe this philosophy can be applied in an unprecedented way. Hopefully.

Since this idea of separate but equal has been brought up again, I suppose it refers to some kind of proposed solution whereby people who wish to form some kind of legally recognized union that is equivalent to what is called a marriage for two people of the opposite sex can do so without calling it marriage.

If that's the case, then let's just make it clear that I was never talking about that. I was talking about marriage itself and that alone has nothing to do with the idea of separate but equal.

But it might be too late to argue over definitions
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...glish/marriage
The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage

Furthermore, the definition of anti-hero doesn't change the definition of hero.

They had to come up with the word antihero because they recognized that an antihero does not portray the traditional view of a hero.

With same-sex marriage, some people don't even want to recognize the distinction and just want to call it marriage. And that idea is reflected in the definitions you've cited.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing over what the word marriage has come to mean for many people. I'm only saying that the issue of equality is born out of this new definition.

[GDB]

I always find it humorous when those who argue for the "sanctity of marriage" forget that it's only been a religious thing for a few hundred years. Before that, it was all arranged marriages or bartered marriages done solely to increase your family's standing by marrying into a more powerful or wealthy family. The man would even have to buy the daughter from her father. So if you want to argue for traditional marriage, then fine, put a price tag on your daughter.

And that's not getting into the whole divorce thing, which is denounced even more in the Bible than homosexuality. And yes, it matters. You cannot cherry-pick which aspects of marriage you like and which you don't and use that as a basis for controlling others.

[monster]

Originally Posted by GDB

I always find it humorous when those who argue for the "sanctity of marriage" forget that it's only been a religious thing for a few hundred years.

Considering religion has been present in many societies for far more than a mere few hundred years, what's your basis for making this claim?

Before that, it was all arranged marriages or bartered marriages done solely to increase your family's standing by marrying into a more powerful or wealthy family. The man would even have to buy the daughter from her father. So if you want to argue for traditional marriage, then fine, put a price tag on your daughter.

If you want to make that argument, then go ahead, but don't try to claim that this has to be the argument that others must use.

And that's not getting into the whole divorce thing, which is denounced even more in the Bible than homosexuality.

It's actually not, considering the punishment for the latter is physical death. But let's not get into it here for obvious reasons.

[GuidoHunter_Toki]

Originally Posted by monster

Considering religion has been present in many societies for far more than a mere few hundred years, what's your basis for making this claim?

Just because religion is present in a society doesn't mean the act of marriage is directly related to it in any way.

Marriage has not always been a union between a man and a woman. Furthermore, marriage has not always been a union designed, or endorsed, by God or the church.

Heck, Marriage predates monotheism (the belief of one god). If I recall marriage wasn't even treated as a religious ceremony until around 16th century Europe.

Marriage has evolved constantly over the course of human history, and it will continue to do so. Marriage will continue to be re-defined.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by monster

I suppose it refers to some kind of proposed solution whereby people who wish to form some kind of legally recognized union that is equivalent to what is called a marriage for two people of the opposite sex can do so without calling it marriage.

If that's the case, then let's just make it clear that I was never talking about that.

Right. So I suppose there's no problem then?

[monster]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter_Toki

Marriage has not always been a union between a man and a woman.

What's your source on this?

Originally Posted by Akuma Kinomoto

Right. So I suppose there's no problem then?

I'm not sure as I'm not the one who brought it up in the first place.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by monster

I'm not sure as I'm not the one who brought it up in the first place.

You insinuated that the issue redefines marriage

Originally Posted by monster

So the issue with marriage equality isn't about mere equality, but about defining what marriage is

Originally Posted by monster

You do realize that when you have interracial marriage you still have husband and wife. don't you? When you have interreligious marriage, you still have husband and wife. When you have same-sex marriage, you don't have husband and wife. So that's a clear redefinition of marriage in the latter part.

thus I offered a solution that wouldn't. What's the problem now?

[GDB]

Originally Posted by monster

It's actually not, considering the punishment for the latter is physical death. But let's not get into it here for obvious reasons.

The punishment for the FORMER is for the woman to be stoned.

Originally Posted by monster

What's your source on this?

Have you never studied history at all? Sorry, but everything you're saying implies you don't know anything about history further back then 30 years or so. According to the second article below, the church didn't sanctify marriage until 1563.

If you want a general timeline of events: http://www.livescience.com/37777-his...-marriage.html

And another fun fact article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4589763.html

[monster]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kinomoto

You insinuated that the issue redefines marriage


thus I offered a solution that wouldn't. What's the problem now?

The problem is that your solution, not only still redefines marriage, but further complicates the issue by creating a new name for it and then using that new name for a certain group of people while keeping the old name for a different group of people.

As you've noted yourself:

Originally Posted by Akuma Kinomoto

Historically, separate but equal has been anything but equal.

So, if anything, this will exacerbate the issue.

Originally Posted by GDB

The punishment for the FORMER is for the woman to be stoned.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this, but please cite the verse in a PM. I think we shouldn't discuss it in this thread any further.

Have you never studied history at all? Sorry, but everything you're saying implies you don't know anything about history further back then 30 years or so. According to the second article below, the church didn't sanctify marriage until 1563.

If you want a general timeline of events: http://www.livescience.com/37777-his...-marriage.html

And another fun fact article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4589763.html

None of that says that a marriage isn't a union between a man and a woman. It talks about the different reasons to marry, and even the different number of wives (and perhaps husbands) in the case of a polygamy, but they all still involved a union between a man and a woman.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by monster

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this, but please cite the verse in a PM. I think we shouldn't discuss it in this thread any further.

Spoiler for Scriptures:

Matthew 19:9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Mark 10:11 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her."

Mark 10:12 "And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

So basically, the divorce itself doesn't lead to stoning, but doing anything but remaining alone and celibate = adultery and adultery = death sentence.

None of that says that a marriage isn't a union between a man and a woman. It talks about the different reasons to marry, and even the different number of wives (and perhaps husbands) in the case of a polygamy, but they all still involved a union between a man and a woman.

Way to change the argument. The argument at hand here was religious sanctimony, which you maintained has always been the basis of marriage. I showed that wasn't the case until 1563. It also shows the definition has changed from being any number of people to a single person. So why is it okay that it changed before, but not now?