Gay marriage with guest Jesse Cowell

[darkumbra]

But here is the rub; is there an absolute albeit hard to determine at times, right or wrong? If no, then anything goes, including ignoring the intent of the writers, if yes, then the judges are responsible to seek what is right or wrong from the clear moral intentions that exist as part of the universe, and further, if they fail in that regard, they are derelict of duty and will be held responsible from the ultimate supreme court, GOD!

Yes... see my note above or, re-read the relevant portion here:

1) All Men are created equal. --- putting aside the contextual sexism of the second word - this is perhaps the most profound statement of morality ever penned. America should be proud to be the country that based its justice system upon it, and once believed and acted upon it.

"All Men are created equal" is second only to the next thought, one which has a more ancient history and which is embedded in all world religions - even if it did NOT originate in religion but in a secular set of rules.

2) The Golden rule / also known as the law of reciprocity - Treat others as you would like to be treated - Extend to others the same rights and privileges as you expect for yourself - recognize that others, despite their differences, have as much right to live in peace and harmony as you do. THESE are moral rules that enable a society to thrive and prosper. It is THESE rules that can dictate our behavior EVEN when our emotions, our biases, our first impulses would have us act differently. It is THESE rules and how we adhere to them that define our true worth. It is THESE rules that allow us to make ourselves better than what we were, so that we can become who we'd be proud to be.

Those two rules in combination - will help us through most moral quandaries with respect to how we should live in harmony together.

If you can find some fundamental flaw to my assertion - then I'd request you post it here.

[Philosophickle]

Excellent show you two!

I find myself in a weird position, being more or less Orthodox in my Christianity but so obsessively convinced of libertarianism that I just can't imagine the State regulating something like marriage. I would rather the govt. not recognize marriages at all (but rather civil unions) and leave that up to churches or whoever else is interested. I just can't get hyper over gay marriage like some of my Evangelical brethren do.

[NH Baritone]

I find myself in a weird position, being more or less Orthodox in my Christianity but so obsessively convinced of libertarianism that I just can't imagine the State regulating something like marriage. I would rather the govt. not recognize marriages at all (but rather civil unions) and leave that up to churches or whoever else is interested. I just can't get hyper over gay marriage like some of my Evangelical brethren do.

In that case I suppose that you would also prefer that the Government (i.e., courts) do NONE of the following: mediate contract disputes, intervene in child abuse & neglect, hold parents responsible for the care of their children (regardless of who has physical custody of them), take into account (in the event of a 'divorce') the work of homemaking that allows a working spouse to pursue a career, decide on who is or is not family in regard to estates that are not covered by a will, etc.

Emery is much more up on the rights and responsibilities covered by family law, and these vary from state to state, but marriage is not just about the ceremony, but the contract that applies to the couple from that point forward.

[Emery]

I disagree- but it's a matter of semantics. Hetro couples have a RIGHT to marry. That RIGHT is being denied to other couples only on the basis of gender. So... no 'foisting' there...

That's almost correct, darkumbra, as I see it. The wrinkle is that gays can marry too, but it just won't be recognized and afforded legal protection by the state. Therefore a right is not being denied, rather a benefit is not being conferred (the benefit of legal recognition). At least that's how I see it at the moment, I definitely could be wrong.

HOWEVER what is being 'foisted' is the belief system that motivates this exclusion. In those cases where the motivation is religious... the belief that Gay Marriage is 'wrong' is being used on those who do not even believe in the God where this belief is coming from.

Sure, but that goes both ways: we're also foisting our belief that it is right

I am also far more interested in discussing this from a moral/ethic stand point RATHER than the 'legal' points of order. While the two are irrevocably intertwingled - the answer lies outside the legal system -- and then is codified within that system. That said, I don't see how the issue can be separated into those two boxes.

Good point, and I'm sorry to have turned this into such a legal analysis. Law should follow morality, and the moral question is ultimately the one to be resolved.

[darkumbra]

HOWEVER what is being 'foisted' is the belief system that motivates this exclusion. In those cases where the motivation is religious... the belief that Gay Marriage is 'wrong' is being used on those who do not even believe in the God where this belief is coming from.

Sure, but that goes both ways: we're also foisting our belief that it is right

There we do disagree... wink acknowledged. What couple 'x' does in no way foists behaviour or belief on another.

[Emery]

You sure about that, DU? If Christians think gay marriage is morally wrong, doesn't giving gay marriage legal protection sort of foist upon them the idea that gay marriage is not wrong?

[Philosophickle]

I find myself in a weird position, being more or less Orthodox in my Christianity but so obsessively convinced of libertarianism that I just can't imagine the State regulating something like marriage. I would rather the govt. not recognize marriages at all (but rather civil unions) and leave that up to churches or whoever else is interested. I just can't get hyper over gay marriage like some of my Evangelical brethren do.

In that case I suppose that you would also prefer that the Government (i.e., courts) do NONE of the following: mediate contract disputes, intervene in child abuse & neglect, hold parents responsible for the care of their children (regardless of who has physical custody of them), take into account (in the event of a 'divorce') the work of homemaking that allows a working spouse to pursue a career, decide on who is or is not family in regard to estates that are not covered by a will, etc.

The government ought to mediate contract disputes, but ought not infringe upon which contracts are valid (as long as the participants are willing and not breaking rules concerning basic rights).

Emery is much more up on the rights and responsibilities covered by family law, and these vary from state to state, but marriage is not just about the ceremony, but the contract that applies to the couple from that point forward.

Anybody can sign a contract. Marriage is superfluous concerning contracts (or, at least, it should be). That is why I said that the govt. should recognize civil unions rather than marriages.

[Philosophickle]

You sure about that, DU? If Christians think gay marriage is morally wrong, doesn't giving gay marriage legal protection sort of foist upon them the idea that gay marriage is not wrong?

The problem would be solved if we did not ask the govt. to recognize marriages in the first place.

[darkumbra]

You sure about that, DU? If Christians think gay marriage is morally wrong, doesn't giving gay marriage legal protection sort of foist upon them the idea that gay marriage is not wrong?

Nope. Not at all. No Christian, will be forced, or even enticed, to enter into a Gay marriage. Honest. They do not even have to attend a Gay marriage.

They are free to live their lives as they please. They can EVEN gain brownie points with Jesus by praying for the sinners in the rest of the world.

Nothing is being foisted on them. It literally is none of their business.

[darkumbra]

You sure about that, DU? If Christians think gay marriage is morally wrong, doesn't giving gay marriage legal protection sort of foist upon them the idea that gay marriage is not wrong?

The problem would be solved if we did not ask the govt. to recognize marriages in the first place.

The reason the govt is involved is one of property rights. Nothing more.

[JustJim]

The wrinkle is that gays can marry too, but it just won't be recognized and afforded legal protection by the state.

Emery,

I think you're stretching semantics a bit here. How can they be married, if there is no one authorized to perform their marriage ceremony? Are you implying that a mutual commitment and the speaking of marriage vows constitute a marriage? Not in Ohio, they don't. In Ohio, where I'm legally authorized to "solemnize" marriages, I am not permitted to solemnize same-sex marriages. In the eyes of the state of Ohio, couples are not considered to be married unless their marriage has been properly solemnized. Therefore, gay couples who you say can "marry" cannot marry in the eyes of the state. That means, even if they can find someone to perform their ceremony (in violation of the law), they are only considered to be married by themselves and their friends and sympathizers. In every other sense of the word "married", they are not. Mutual commitment and vows is what gays already have, and it's not "marriage".

Jim

[Philosophickle]

You sure about that, DU? If Christians think gay marriage is morally wrong, doesn't giving gay marriage legal protection sort of foist upon them the idea that gay marriage is not wrong?

The problem would be solved if we did not ask the govt. to recognize marriages in the first place.

The reason the govt is involved is one of property rights. Nothing more.

My solution remains. Allow gays to enter whatever kind of contract they want, and the govt. can protect and uphold the contract. Skip the "marriage" talk.

[darkumbra]

My solution remains. Allow gays to enter whatever kind of contract they want, and the govt. can protect and uphold the contract. Skip the "marriage" talk.

If we were starting from scratch yes - good solution. The problem is that there are many laws on the books that refer to 'marriage'... if Gays are given the RIGHT to 'marry' then all those laws must apply equally to Gay Unions... if NOT? They must all be modified to reflect that Gay Unions are afforded the same rights and responsibilities.

An exceedingly trivial example. When you enter the US you must fill out a customs form. One per FAMILY. Married gays (one family) entering the US MUST fill out TWO forms - despite the FACT that they are a family under Canadian law.. Why? because the USA does not recognize a Gay Union as a family since the two people are NOT married.

[Rian]

OK, finals over; finals parties over; graduation and bday parties over; Memorial Day family and friends gathering over (do I just party more than most people here? Whew!) AND ... the kitchen is clean!!!!

The kids are watching a movie (the first Indiana Jones movie - wow, does he look young!), so I can spend some time posting here

Here's my basic position:

I think that marriage should be between two consenting adults that:

1. are at least 18 years old, and
2. are either not related, or related farther than first cousins, and
3. are not already married, and
4. are of the opposite sex, and
5. are of sufficient mental capacity to meaningfully consent.

That's MHO. I'm guessing that on this thread, most people's HOs are the same on at least 4 out of the 5 limits. I might have a few more limits, too, which I'll add if they occur to me.

[Rian]

Finally, here are some ground rules and assumptions for this discussion: those that oppose gay marriage are not homophobic. Those that support it are not without scruples. And finally, no one is a moron if they disagree with you. If you think someone has a dumb argument, then attack the argument and show why it's dumb. Brutal criticism of arguments is allowed. Ad hominem attacks are not. That being said, Wonders, you may want to put on your knight costume anyway.

Whoa... one sec here. The highlighted groundrule/assumption is one huge dandy of an assumption. If you inserted "are not always Homophobic.." then I'd agree.

And so would I. What is nonsense to me is when people just start yelling "homophobe!" any time a person says they're against gay marriage. Given that logic, you might as well look at my list that I just posted and say that I'm an under-18-yr-old-phobe, first-cousin-or-closer phobe, already-married-phobe, etc. etc.