Question; eventually relates to gay marriage
-
Question: Do you think the government has any role in promoting fundamental values?
For example, should the government promote an entrepreneurial spirit as an important value or should it just create a chance for equal opportunities so that if society considers it important then it will thrive? (By creating equal access the implicit value is that each person can pursue their happiness, but it is not explicit/a requirement to follow).
I ask this because I think it has changed my opinion on gay marriage. My original position was that gay couples should be given equal rights to married couples (in terms of benefits and having civil unions), but that they shouldn't be able have a state-sanctioned "marriage." My rationale was that government should be able to promote traditional marriage and the nuclear family as the fundamental building blocks of society. But wouldn't our Founders have trusted religion/society/culture to continue viewing traditional marriage as special instead of having our government treat it as special?
If the government is giving equal rights to gay couples except for the word "marriage" then the only purpose seems to be to promote traditional marriage. [In the past the government actually gave married couples more rights than gay couples and so it was actually doing something rather than just promoting an idea, even though I am not advocating going back to that].
It would be a totally different story if gay rights activists were trying to get religions to endorse their marriages, though. -
As my beliefs dictate, homosexuality is wrong. However, so are a lot of things that are not illegal. I do not condone homosexuality or a homosexual lifestyle, but if a gay couple want to get married and have the same benefits as a man and woman being married, then they should be allowed to. The state should not deny them the same rights that a straight married couple get.
To put it simply, homosexual couples should be allowed to enter the contract of marriage just like straight couples. -
QUOTE (cartoon. @ Feb 16 2010, 10:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>if the queers want to get married....let them who gives a shit.
+1. -
QUOTE (Evestay @ Feb 16 2010, 03:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Question: Do you think the government has any role in promoting fundamental values?
For example, should the government promote an entrepreneurial spirit as an important value or should it just create a chance for equal opportunities so that if society considers it important then it will thrive? (By creating equal access the implicit value is that each person can pursue their happiness, but it is not explicit/a requirement to follow).
I ask this because I think it has changed my opinion on gay marriage. My original position was that gay couples should be given equal rights to married couples (in terms of benefits and having civil unions), but that they shouldn't be able have a state-sanctioned "marriage." My rationale was that government should be able to promote traditional marriage and the nuclear family as the fundamental building blocks of society. But wouldn't our Founders have trusted religion/society/culture to continue viewing traditional marriage as special instead of having our government treat it as special?
If the government is giving equal rights to gay couples except for the word "marriage" then the only purpose seems to be to promote traditional marriage. [In the past the government actually gave married couples more rights than gay couples and so it was actually doing something rather than just promoting an idea, even though I am not advocating going back to that].
It would be a totally different story if gay rights activists were trying to get religions to endorse their marriages, though.
Short answer: Nope. And it's good to see someone change their mind. -
QUOTE (Alfy @ Feb 16 2010, 12:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>As my beliefs dictate, homosexuality is wrong. However, so are a lot of things that are not illegal. I do not condone homosexuality or a homosexual lifestyle, but if a gay couple want to get married and have the same benefits as a man and woman being married, then they should be allowed to. The state should not deny them the same rights that a straight married couple get.
To put it simply, homosexual couples should be allowed to enter the contract of marriage just like straight couples.
Alfy's stealing my thoughts!
-dan -
The governments job is to protect you from other people. The government shouldn't have the ability to define marriage at all.
-
QUOTE (Bill @ Feb 16 2010, 10:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>By asking the question as it is you're suggesting that being gay is somehow in direct opposition to "fundamental values", and I therefore refuse to answer your question because doing so would help encourage your outdated views on "value".
I said: "My rationale was that government should be able to promote traditional marriage and the nuclear family as the fundamental building blocks of society."
It is safe to say that the nuclear family is the fundamental building block of society. 10,000 years of human history have shown us this. I am not saying other modes are not workable (b/c they are) but I am saying that society is generally organized around the nuclear family. That can change but it isn't going to change anytime soon.
Ask any gay couple raising a child what their dreams are for their child in terms of love and family. They would probably say something like, "I just want my kid to be happy. To meet somebody they love that they can spend their life with and raise a family with." That doesn't have to mean the nuclear family but it points in that direction. -
QUOTE (Evestay @ Feb 18 2010, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I said: "My rationale was that government should be able to promote traditional marriage and the nuclear family as the fundamental building blocks of society."
It is safe to say that the nuclear family is the fundamental building block of society. 10,000 years of human history have shown us this. I am not saying other modes are not workable (b/c they are) but I am saying that society is generally organized around the nuclear family. That can change but it isn't going to change anytime soon.
Except that 10,000 years of human history has shown us exactly the opposite of that. It is only very recently (a few hundred years) that the nuclear family has emerged as a "fundamental" building block of society, and it is still not considered "fundamental" by a non-negligible minority (myself included). -
QUOTE (Evestay @ Feb 18 2010, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Ask any gay couple raising a child what their dreams are for their child in terms of love and family. They would probably say something like, "I just want my kid to be happy. To meet somebody they love that they can spend their life with and raise a family with." That doesn't have to mean the nuclear family but it points in that direction.
Not be snarky, but I think anyone would want their kid to be happy, gay or straight. I don't see how your statement points to a nuclear family; in fact, I think it doesn't point to anyone.
Ultimately, it should not up to the state to decide who can and cannot marry who. However, in a perfect world, our government is run by the people, for the people, and if they (the people) want to elect representatives that think homosexuality should be made a crime punishable by death, there are ways to do that. On the flip side, if they want to make heterosexual marriages illegal and punishable by death, they can do that too. Furthermore, if anyone finds those hypothetical laws unfair or improper, there are ways of reversing those laws.
Bottom line, if the people want homosexual marriages to be equal to heterosexual marriages, then they should support politicians who agree with that. -
QUOTE (Governor @ Feb 18 2010, 04:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Except that 10,000 years of human history has shown us exactly the opposite of that. It is only very recently (a few hundred years) that the nuclear family has emerged as a "fundamental" building block of society, and it is still not considered "fundamental" by a non-negligible minority (myself included).
I think it points closer to a nuclear family in terms of sexuality. -
QUOTE (mungo @ Feb 18 2010, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>QUOTE (Governor @ Feb 18 2010, 04:54 PM)
Except that 10,000 years of human history has shown us exactly the opposite of that. It is only very recently (a few hundred years) that the nuclear family has emerged as a "fundamental" building block of society, and it is still not considered "fundamental" by a non-negligible minority (myself included).
I think it points closer to a nuclear family in terms of sexuality.
I've been working on this post for about 5 minutes now. I got nothing.
happy lent... -
QUOTE (Andrew @ Feb 19 2010, 07:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I've been working on this post for about 5 minutes now. I got nothing.
happy lent...
I'm jewish babycakes -
QUOTE (mungo @ Feb 19 2010, 09:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'm jewish babycakes
Oh... ummm.
You all geared up for Ta'anit Ester?
Trying again, for what it's worth:
"I think it points closer to a nuclear family in terms of sexuality."
You think what points closer to "a nuclear family"?
What do you mean "in terms of sexuality" as it relates to this unsourced pointing towards the nuclear family?
I'm having trouble even forming questions to ask about this statement because it makes no sense. -
QUOTE (Evestay @ Feb 16 2010, 01:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>But wouldn't our Founders have trusted religion/society/culture to continue viewing traditional marriage as special instead of having our government treat it as special?
If the government is giving equal rights to gay couples except for the word "marriage" then the only purpose seems to be to promote traditional marriage. [In the past the government actually gave married couples more rights than gay couples and so it was actually doing something rather than just promoting an idea, even though I am not advocating going back to that].
It would be a totally different story if gay rights activists were trying to get religions to endorse their marriages, though.
For the above reasons, I hold the position the Constitution should be amended and have the word "marriage" removed from it and replaced with "civil union" or something analogous. As long as Government is in the Marriage business, Religions are going to be trying to influence the government definition of "Marriage" as it has direct implications to them. Easiest solution is to end the debate on the government side, get government out of that business, and leave "marriage" to the religions, while government concerns itself simply with the civil side of the arrangement. -
QUOTE (Governor @ Feb 18 2010, 02:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Except that 10,000 years of human history has shown us exactly the opposite of that. It is only very recently (a few hundred years) that the nuclear family has emerged as a "fundamental" building block of society, and it is still not considered "fundamental" by a non-negligible minority (myself included).
Actually, I'll actually agree with some of the "gay historians" on this front as there is sufficient evidence to back many of their historical claims.
Most historical evidence suggests that "classical Europe" (Greece, Rome, etc) had no problems with Bisexual behavior among men and indications are they didn't have significant issues with "pure" Homosexual behavior either, though it was somewhat frowned upon(seeing as you can't reproduce that way). It wasn't really until Christianity entered into those areas and became able to exert significant social pressures that those behaviors became completely unwelcome. Negative views of sodomy in particular was something that seemed to be largely unique to Judeo-Christian belief systems. Thanks in large part to the biblical tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, no doubt. -
QUOTE (TheDeamon @ Feb 23 2010, 12:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>For the above reasons, I hold the position the Constitution should be amended and have the word "marriage" removed from it and replaced with "civil union" or something analogous. As long as Government is in the Marriage business, Religions are going to be trying to influence the government definition of "Marriage" as it has direct implications to them. Easiest solution is to end the debate on the government side, get government out of that business, and leave "marriage" to the religions, while government concerns itself simply with the civil side of the arrangement.
Please point to the Section of the Constitution that contains the word "marriage". I don't believe it appears in the document, but I could be mistaken. -
QUOTE (Andrew @ Feb 23 2010, 12:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Please point to the Section of the Constitution that contains the word "marriage". I don't believe it appears in the document, but I could be mistaken.
Eh, you're right. That's what I get for going from memory. It isn't in there, that makes it much easier then. =P
The part I was thinking about was evidently the "full faith and credit" clause in Article 4 section 1, which is generally the basis for (traditional) marriages performed in one State being recognized in the other States and Territories. Though from the little bit I'm reading now, it evidently is a legal grey area currently as there has been no instance where a State has refused to recognize a marriage performed in another State where Article 4, section 1 was used as the basis of reversing the State's policy... .There were some legal challenges to some states refusing to recognize inter-racial Marriages some time ago, but that was resolved by striking down the laws that banned inter-racial marriage on other grounds.
I still hold the easiest solution is for Government to acknowledge Marriage as a "religious institution" and for Government to GTFO of the entire mess by only officiating over Civil Unions or something of a comparable nature/name. -
QUOTE (TheDeamon @ Feb 24 2010, 12:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Eh, you're right. That's what I get for going from memory. It isn't in there, that makes it much easier then. =P
The part I was thinking about was evidently the "full faith and credit" clause in Article 4 section 1, which is generally the basis for (traditional) marriages performed in one State being recognized in the other States and Territories. Though from the little bit I'm reading now, it evidently is a legal grey area currently as there has been no instance where a State has refused to recognize a marriage performed in another State where Article 4, section 1 was used as the basis of reversing the State's policy... .There were some legal challenges to some states refusing to recognize inter-racial Marriages some time ago, but that was resolved by striking down the laws that banned inter-racial marriage on other grounds.
I still hold the easiest solution is for Government to acknowledge Marriage as a "religious institution" and for Government to GTFO of the entire mess by only officiating over Civil Unions or something of a comparable nature/name.
That's fine as long as being "married" is a completely meaningless legal process. Like being baptized.
Cause basically the situation you are describing is what we see today. Government has to STEP IN to make it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals. That is what the federal government it for, when it comes to domestic policy. State X,Y, or Z legalizes lynchings? Federal Government overrules it.
Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Add the word "sexuality" after "sex" and before "national origin" in all instances thereof.
Add the words "or institution" after "facilities" in Title III thereof.
Decouple marriage from the legality of the union. Marriage doesn't even generate a piece of paper, just makes you give each other rings.
Move all rights and privileges associated with "marriage" to civil unions, as they are not already there.
This isn't hard. It doesn't require some drastic rethinking of the way we do things in this country. And it's absolutely mindboggling that we can't get our shit together on basic human rights and dignity. But step 1 isn't to make sure government acknowledges "marriage as a religious institution." it's "as a religious institution, marriage is not legally recognized by any governmental entity in the United States of America or that of any of her states."
I don't get some kind of special tax privileges because I was baptized.
-
according to wikipedia "The majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians (76%), while non-Christian religions (including Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and others) collectively make up about 4% of the adult population.[3] Another 15% of the adult population identified as having no religious affiliation."
The line between church and state is going to remain thin until these numbers change. -
QUOTE (redbone @ Feb 24 2010, 11:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>according to wikipedia "The majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians (76%), while non-Christian religions (including Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and others) collectively make up about 4% of the adult population.[3] Another 15% of the adult population identified as having no religious affiliation."
The line between church and state is going to remain thin until these numbers change.
roughly 25% catholic, 50% protestant.
People apparently need to be educated on the differences between a civil union and a marriage. I'd guess that if that poll went deeper it would find that most thought it was simply a word.
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!