५ जून, २००६
"A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple."
Says Senator Kennedy. I'd say it's a vote for political gain -- whichever side you're voting on -- and it's not the least bit pure, though it is rather simple. You call them bigots. They emit sentences like: "Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society... Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all." I'm not going to listen to the details of this shameless talk. We've been through it all before, and there isn't a chance in hell that the damned thing is going to pass (given the required supermajorities).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६६ टिप्पण्या:
Does the branch of the Republican Party for which this amendment is important recognize that this is just a bone thrown to them every 2 years and that nothing will come of it? Surely they must.
Thank goodness the economy is humming along, deficits are under control, Osama bin Laden is rotting away in a jail somewhere, Iraq and Iran are both moderate democracies, America is respected everywhere, and North Korea is an fully integrated member of the International Community, and Washington DC government is as uncorrupt as any in the world!! Otherwise I'd think this vote is silly.
I fully expect elevated terror warnings to start up again before November as well.
Well I don't think either side has a monopoly on political bone throwing. The question is which side manages to do it more effectively.
And just being negative, tends not to be effective. Articulate what you stand for and run on it.
Sometimes my cynicism does get the better of me.
7m (and others, apparently) -- are you saying it's a good thing for the Senate to debate this amendment? That this is a good way to spend time?
"Are the Democrats for whom Ted Kennedy speaks incapable of tolerating disagreement without smearing their opponents as bigots on any and every issue?"
Not as long as it keeps working!
Note: when a politician says something is "pure and simple," you can be sure it's not.
Don't kid yourself -- there are people for whom support of this amendment is nothing less than bigotry. I think it's counterproductive, however, to single out the most radical element of the opposition and attempt to tar the entire opposition with that brush. Of course, everyone does do that occasionally.
My complaint is the time-wastiness of this amendment. If enacted, this amendment will almost certainly be repealed in due course. I am certain, for example, that an anti-miscegenation amendments could have been put into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers -- who would have opposed it back in the 1700s? Ask yourself why they didn't -- and then contemplate why a same-sex marriage prohibition should be there now.
The last time the morality police succeeded in getting an amendment into the constitution, it was an abject failure that was then repealed.
"Time-wastiness" -- cool word, like "truthiness." :)
Wow. Amazing how fast this thread went from Anne's comment to conservatives squealing about Clinton and nasty liberal name calling.
That's how it works; when you're convinced other people are less worthy than yourself, and need to be put in their place under the law, that's bigotry. It's not a polite disagreement, it's an attack on your fellow citizens.
A vote for the amendment is pandering; the pandering is to the bigots who think we need the amendment. It's a spade; call it one.
"Don't kid yourself -- there are people for whom support of this amendment is nothing less than bigotry."
What evidence is there that anyone is kidding themselves about that? The self-kidding is by people who say that support for the amendment is always and only based on bigotry!
7M, enshrining prejudice against me into the fundamental document of our country isn't a "policy difference." It's an act of bigotry. Your euphamisms are nothing more than rationalizations. If can, or Anne, can come up with a better term, one that doesn't sugarcoat the belief that gay citizens are less than equal, then go ahead. But "policy difference" doesn't cut it. You believe that some Americans should be treated differently than the majority, and go so far as to say that it's our own fault, that this is just a reaction to our working for our rights. Sorry, I can't find a better word than bigotry. It fits.
I think (though I'm not certain) that Madison Man got my point, which was that the world wasn't coming up roses before Bush was inaugurated.
Let's say a pollster asked me if I was satisfied with the direction the country was headed. The likelihood of my saying NO is far greater now than it was during the Clinton administration.
The self-kidding is by people who say that support for the amendment is always and only based on bigotry!
I was curious to see where the Kennedy quote originated, and I think I found it here. In the context, the bigotry is linked to the Republican Right Wing, and I do think that's where those who support this amendment for only bigoted reasons sit.
I wonder how the debate would have evolved here had the nominally more nuanced (IMO) meaning of Kennedy's quote been clearer. He (or his lackey) is guilty of writing something that can be lifted as a soundbite to make him look silly (as if he needs help in that department!) -- I wonder why he didn't insert a 'For some people...' which I think he meant.
"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own."
That knife cuts both ways.
I've often heard that libertarian types vote strategically to split the congress or congress and the white house so that nothing gets done. The idea being that given the chance, the government is screw up than help. So in that perspective, isn't this a good thing?
Plenty of time spent talking without a chance of anything being accomplished. Huzzah for the Marriage Amendment!
"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own."
That knife cuts both ways.
No sense getting riled in any case, as Ann says its not going anywhere.
There is a difference between (1) debating the merits of extending marriage rights to same sex couples and (2) supporting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the effect of which would be to deny same sex couples the opportunity to achieve such rights, even through the legislative process, where the issue is a deliberately timed political stunt with no chance of passing done at the expense of gay and lesbian couples.
The former is a policy discussion where reasonable minds may differ. The latter is a fear-induced over-reaction to and exploitation of the issue. I think a Senator's support for this amendment is deserving of the kind of contempt Kennedy expressed.
Seven: I don't think I get your point. Mine is that amending the Constitution so that gays and lesbians cannot achieve marriage rights by any means other than their own constitutional amendment is not the logical extension of opposition to same sex marriage any more than amending the Constitution to ban flag burning is the logical extension of thinking that burning flags is a bad idea.
One can oppose same sex marriage without wanting to take the extreme measure of amending the Constitution. The FMA denies gays and lesbians the right to try to achieve marriage rights through the legislative process. I think that is very different and much worse than merely opposing same sex marriage and, yes, I think it is deserving of contempt.
7M, I'm not a leftist intolerant of people who disagree with me. I understand disagreement on a great many issues, and participate in rich discussions about those disagreements.
I am a lesbian, absolutely intolerant of bigotry against me based on my sexuality. That is quite specific. There are comments here that rest on ridiculous generalizations, accusing Democrats of "smearing their opponents..on any and every issue, for example, when we're talking about one issue, this issue.
The notion that democracy means we can simply decide some people have rights and others don't is ludicrous. We're not a direct democracy; we have courts, and other safeguards against the tyranny of the majority. Would you overturn Loving v. Virginia? Is it fine with you if some communities decide that miscegenation should be illegal because that's just democracy at work? No, but to rationalize the difference in your position you'll have to pull out some faux-indignance at comparing gay rights to racial rights. The pattern's old and predictable: how dare the people I don't want to tolerate be so intolerant as to call out my intolerance? And, how dare those gays compare themselves to slaves? Exaggeration, generalizations, strawmen, and spin.
When communities attempt to make laws and policies that are prejudicial against another group of citizens, there's no shame in calling those acts for what they are, acts of bigotry.
This amendment won't pass, but it's important to reject the politics of pandering to fear and bigotry. This president is pandering, as are those who vote for the amendment. I'm glad the amendment is doomed, but I'm also tired of this seasonal, ritual scapegoating of gay people. Sitting silently while it happens isn't the right course to take. And getting sidetracked by Kennedy's comment misses the point.
I have become very bitter toward the Republican party in the last few years, especially since Terry Schievo (sp); so much so that I'm changing the letter on my voter registration from an "R" to an "I". The small government / big tent structure is looking more and more like a largess government / church steeple. I prefer my party and church to be in two different buildings, thank you very much, though the current arrangement does save on drive time and gas :-)
PS. The D's are no better since they are more and more influenced by the whims of ANSWER and Move On.org, whos followers are as devout as any serving a religious cause.
Seven, Speaking as a member of a same sex couple living and working in a 'podunk' rural area controlled by Republicans, I am not willing to get up and move to the big city because my community is somewhat less receptive to gay rights. I think the idea is ridiculous. Should black people be encouraged to move to Africa (or the big city for that matter) if they don't like racial discrimination?
You may disagree but gay couples have legitimate constitutional and policy arguments in their quest for same sex marriage. And as much as you repeat it, the public backlash against the efforts of gays and lesbians to achieve various rights, from military service to adoption to marriage, is waning. In fact, public opinion has shifted in favor of gay rights over the last decade and more, even in the podunk towns, even among religious people. Check out Pew's recent review of polls of gay rights issues.
Ok, I've had quite a learning session today in vocabulary and logic. I hope I have it right:
Gays should go live in the cities and stop trying to force our rights (screw that inalienable crap, that's for normal people) down the throats of good people who'd really just rather leave us alone, but as long as we're forcing the issue, then it's okay for them to use the constitution to keep us in our place. And when we disagree with this, we're fascists and totalitarians.
Elizabeth wrote:
"7M, enshrining prejudice against me into the fundamental document of our country isn't a "policy difference." It's an act of bigotry."
Whoa--hang on a second. Nobody's legislating prejudice against you specifically. Why would you let your sexuality--a single aspect of your existence--define the entirety of your being? From what we've read over the years, there's plenty more to you (college professor, New Orleanian, etc.) than that one trait. Unless you're planning on marrying soon, this amendment doesn't even apply to you. What's causing you to take this so personally?
Bunker wrote:
"My beef is with every special interest group jumping up and down yelling 'look at me! look at me! I'm repressed/not represented/owed something/etc, and trying to get it into the Constitution. Doesn't matter what side of the aisle they're on, when it comes down to it, it's a massive waste of our tax dollars."
Amen to that! We'd all be in much better shape if we concentrated more on the things that unite us (i.e. our humanity) rather than the small differences between us (ethnicity, religion, etc.) that never should have been an issue in the first place.
Elizabeth, thanks. I'm agnostic on the gay marriage issue and kind of unhappy about cynical Republican efforts to use it as a wedge issue, but thanks to your comments, I'm starting to come around. If you like something, I probably ought to be against it. Again, thanks for helping me gain some bearings on the issue.
And Madison Man, don't look in any British or Canadian papers today. I'm sure all you'll find there is more unjustified scaremongering about a totally non-existent terrorist threat. That way, you'll be happy, and nobody who thinks that there actually is a threat will have to waste time trying to engage you in a substantive argument, in which you'll express an implacable opinion. Your viewpoint on the issue does all of us a favor, and I think we don't thank you enough for that.
Kennedy's comment is, not surprisingly, all wet.
I know, I know. Just terrible. But if Kennedy's going to talk like he bears the Mantle Of Meaning, well I'll have to point out few opposing facts.
Face it Ted, we're both washed up.
So it's settled: people who accuse the sponsors of a constitutional amendment that is explicitly designed to prevent gay relationships from getting any kind of legal protection, ever of bigotry are just intolerant smear artists.
Next on the agenda: closed-minded Jews stubbornly refuse to discuss whether arbeit really does macht frei. What's up with that? Excluding the possibility entirely just seems kind of fascist.
(To make a somewhat less snarky comment:)
The charge of bigotry, in this context, means the dual contention that (i) the Federal Marriage Amendment is motivated by irrational and wrong beliefs about gay people, and (ii) that the arguments advanced in favor of the FMA are essentially window-dressing aimed at disguising that fact. Whether you like hearing that contention or not, that is one of the central arguments (if not the central argument) against the FMA. Asserting ex ante that it is out of bounds to make that argument is ridiculous.
There are roughly speaking two categories of "on point" responses to that argument (i.e., the charge of bigotry): one could contend that (i) the arguments against the FMA purported to be window dressing are in fact substantial, or (ii) animus against gays is rationally justified. But the fact that people don't like being called bigots is logically speaking neither here nor there.
7M,
This amendment came up in public discourse at the same time the DOM act was being proposed. It's not just a recent reaction to court cases. But I ask again, would you have overturned Loving v. Virginia? That's not just about racial prejudice but about, as you put it, a decision to marry. After all, black people and white people don't have to choose to marry one another.
Allowing people to exercise the same rights as their neighbors is not enforcing a belief system, any more than the exercise of any civil rights counts as thought control. There's nothing tyrannical in asserting that one group of citizens cannot keep another group from full and equal participation in marriage.
Kevin, I can see where you come from with your question, and my response is that it is personal. I am many things other than gay, true, but in the eyes of my government, that identity is what matters, and in the eyes of craven politicians, attacks on me, and all gay people, are great traction during election years. That's reprehensible, on their part, and on the part of people who feel satisfied by those attacks.
Al, that's a very wise course. I aspire to your maturity.
Haven't many Catholic leaders made statements against redefining marriage? Someone should ask Ted if he also thinks they are 'bigots, pure and simple.'
Maybe he could ask the priest who married him, or the one who baptised his kids, or the one who married him (again) after someone granted him an annulment.
Let's pass an amendment that forbids Seven Machos from marrying.
Hey - it's just democracy at work. And then when he wines about it, we can call him a "fascist leftist".
And he better not accuse me of being bigoted against him, just because I deem him to be a second-class citizen. Because if he complains, it's really his own damn fault that people want to deny him his rights.
As I understand it, what people are saying is that it's gay people's fault for this amendment being proposed.
Well what are gay people supposed to do? Sit there and be quiet? Yup - that worked wonders for civil rights and women's rights. Being silent and not speaking up for your rights - will lead to the granting of your civil rights???
What planet are these people living on?
Gay marriage is not legal in this country. Gays cannot serve in the military. Gays in this country were imprisoned until a few years ago for having sex. Gays are still imprisoned for having sex if they serve in the military.
Gay activists (the opposite being "gay doormats" as Dav Savage points out) have been quite vocal in demanding equality. It has been an extremely successful approach. Marriage is now legal in Massachusetts and civil unions are legal in Connecticut and Vermont. Support for gay marriage is increasing. Gays now have the freedom to have sex in the privacy of their own home - without the government hauling them off to prison, the majority of this country favors gays serving in the military.
Seven Machos thinks gay people should become doormats and remain silent.
Never. Not for me. If you don't like it - tough. But exercising my free speech rights and voicing my OPINION that I think people who want to oppress me are bigots, does NOT make me a "liberal fascist".
As I've said before. When people stop passing bigoted constitutional amendmendments, I'll stop calling them bigots.
But I'm fine with that. Whenever I meet people who support these amendments, I then know that I should avoid these people whenever possible. And when I have to deal with them, I just treat them with contempt. They are not worthy of my respect.
Blah, blah, blah. I really hope the Democrats in both houses who voted for DOMA, applauded "don't ask, don't tell", went back home to states with so-called sodomy laws only enforced against homosexuals etc. had the decency to blush on hearing Senator Kennedy flatulate.
Meanwhile, it would be nice to see so-called conservatives (who used to believe in federalism) would try walking the talk, or just admit their "principles" are little more than a whore's chastity. And for someone who rails against "judicial activists", am I the only person who thinks President Bush is promoting a constitutional amendment with *ahem* a great deal of strategic ambiguity in the language? Or am I the only person who thinks this is also a coded effort to ban states from allowing same-sex civil unions, spousal benefits etc. - because it's certainly being sold to the base as such.
President Bush and Senator Kennedy have their mid-term wedge issue, and let's admit this is exactly what they both want and need. But I have to agree with Professor Althouse - let's not pretend there anything resembling principles at play anywhere on the Hill.
Senator Kennedy: A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple."
Ann Althouse denies it's bigotry: I'd say it's a vote for political gain -- whichever side you're voting on
According to Ann, always eager to bash a Democrat, opponents of the gay marriage ban are in the wrong and voting for political gain and not to prevent bigotry.
History of the United States says:
In December of 1912, an amendment to the Constitution was introduced to abolish racial intermarriage: "Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians . . . within the United States . . . is forever prohibited.
But here is how the Supreme Court put it in 1967 in Loving v. Virgina. (This is the case the Constitutional Law Professor does not wish to discuss.)
The trial judge in the case, Leon Bazile, ... Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
The Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. In its decision, the court wrote
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
In further bashing of the Democrats, Ann Althouse goes on to say
The self-kidding is by people who say that support for the amendment is always and only based on bigotry!
According to Ann, opponents of the gay marriage amendment are self-deluding liars.
And here is how Jack Cafferty put it in 2006:
Guess what Monday is? Monday is the day President Bush will speak about an issue near and dear to his heart and the hearts of many conservatives. It's also the day before the Senate votes on the very same thing. Is it the war? Deficits? Health insurance? Immigration? Iran? North Korea?
Not even close. No, the president is going to talk about amending the Constitution in order to ban gay marriage. This is something that absolutely, positively has no chance of happening, nada, zippo, none. But that doesn't matter. Mr. Bush will take time to make a speech. The Senate will take time to talk and vote on it, because it's something that matters to the Republican base.
This is pure politics. If has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in gay marriage. It's blatant posturing by Republicans, who are increasingly desperate as the midterm elections approach. There's not a lot else to get people interested in voting on them, based on their record of the last five years.
But if you can appeal to the hatred, bigotry, or discrimination in some people, you might move them to the polls to vote against that big, bad gay married couple that one day might in down the street.
Doesn't America deserve better Constitutional Law Professors?
I actually have little problem with the bigots who support this amendment, as long as they were honest about their reasoning.
They almost all support this amendment, because they don't like gay people. They think gays are sinners, or they think gay sex is disgusting (unless they're a straight male - and then lesbian sex is cool - explain that one), or they want to show how straight they are.
Fine. But like I said - admit that's your reasoning. This crap about "protecting" marriage insults my intelligence. People don't have to like gay people. It's a free country. And if you want to pass amendments based on who you don't like - you're allowed to do that too.
It just wouldn't be a very good country anymore. Just like States that have this amendment are not very good states and gays would be wise to move out of them. Why live where you are not wanted.
Downtownlad:
Indeed. In fact those who really fret about "protecting marriage" should be pushing for a constitutional amendment along the lines Teddy Roosevelt proposed in his sixth 'annual message' a century back (text at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29547 ):
QUOTE
I am well aware of how difficult it is to pass a constitutional amendment. Nevertheless in my judgment the whole question of marriage and divorce should be relegated to the authority of the National Congress. At present the wide differences in the laws of the different States on this subject result in scandals and abuses; and surely there is nothing so vitally essential to the welfare of the nation, nothing around which the nation should so bend itself to throw every safeguard, as the home life of the average citizen. The change would be good from every standpoint. In particular it would be good because it would confer on the Congress the power at once to deal radically and efficiently with polygamy; and this should be done whether or not marriage and divorce are dealt with. It is neither safe nor proper to leave the question of polygamy to be dealt with by the several States. Power to deal with it should be conferred on the National Government.
When home ties are loosened; when men and women cease to regard a worthy family life, with all its duties fully performed, and all its responsibilities lived up to, as the life best worth living; then evil days for the commonwealth are at hand. There are regions in our land, and classes of our population, where the birth rate has sunk below the death rate. Surely it should need no demonstration to show that wilful sterility is, from the standpoint of the nation, from the standpoint of the human race, the one sin for which the penalty is national death, race death; a sin for which there is no atonement; a sin which is the more dreadful exactly in proportion as the men and women guilty thereof are in other respects, in character, and bodily and mental powers, those whom for the sake of the state it would be well to see the fathers and mothers of many healthy children, well brought up in homes made happy by their presence. No man, no woman, can shirk the primary duties of life, whether for love of ease and pleasure, or for any other cause, and retain his or her self-respect.
END QUOTE
Well, folks - Teddy seemed to understand the “threat” of you straight people getting divorced and failing to breed. How about you, President Bush - or could it be that more divorcees and childless couples vote Republican than than sodomites and sapphists?
I would support an amendment removing the ability of courts to decide the question. I could care less which way voters go, and in a referendum could probably be bothered enough to get off the sofa and go pull the lever for civil unions, but not for gay marriage. My main concern is the way the courts in the most liberal states are being co-opted in a full faith & credit strategy, to inflict gay marriage on states where voters are nearly unanimously opposed to it. That's judicial tyranny at best. I suppose for many here that makes me a screaming homophobe who's probably suffering terribly from repressing all my gay urges to screw Andy Sullivan, but there you have it.
The government does not recognize people as being gay or straight. Therefore, the question of same-sex marriage is not about the desires of individuals, but the concern society has for those given relationships. Those who support it ought to make an argument that shows if there is any benefit to society that needs to recognized. There is no procreation. We know that much. What concern is it of society that two people love each other and want to live together?
There is no discrimination against individuals simply because same-sex marriage is not recognized under law. All unmarried adults are free to marry an unmarried adult of the opposite sex as long as they both choose it. The government does not outlaw this institution to those who have engaged or have a desire to engage in homosexual activity. This would apply to same-sex marriage in the same way: the two men or women would not have to be gay, under law, to get married. Alternatively, being single does not make you a second-class citizen.
The marriage laws are not about the persons, but the relationship itself. In this, it is discriminatory: it says there is a benefit to society that extends from one generation to another, and it does so according to nature, not appetite.
This Amendment push is pandering. Yet, at the same time, you could see it coming had you but opened your eyes. Should marriage be a state issue? Yes. As we've seen, Federal Judges won't allow it to be. They've thrown out amendments added to state constitutions. They've in fact, made it a Federal issue. This should be clear. It should have been from the time of Roe to now. What starts as a state issue stays so, until the losing party finds a sympathetic Federal Judge.
Vuljean wrote:
There is no procreation. We know that much. What concern is it of society that two people love each other and want to live together?
Ah, but you seem to be very concerned about whether two people can - let alone choose to - have children. Sorry, Vuljean, perhaps you'd like to tell my foster brother he should dump his infertile wife and get himself a 'real' marriage? Or perhaps the state shouldn't recognise his marriage at all, because it doesn't fit your eugenic conception of what marriage is. How arrogant and presumptous!
Seven:
First, I find getting an ettiquite lecture from you as credible as childcare tips or marriage counselling from Britney Spears.
Where I come from, I was raised to keep vulgar and impertinent comments on the fertility of others to myself - where they belong. But I can understand why people who trot out the line about the 'sterility' of homosexual partnerships, get very defensive (and, yes, a little pompous and arrogant) when a very simple fact is pointed out - there are plenty of heterosexual marriages out there are childless, either by circumstance or choice. Or is contraception illegal where YOU live? Strangely enough, I can't recall a jurdisdiction where you have to pass a fertility test to get a marriage licence.
And, seven, please feel free to set up any kind of strawman you like. Just don't put my name around it's neck. What I find most amusing about the FMA is folks like you who rail about "unelected officials" and "judicial activists", but are pimping for a constitutional amendment whose language is, to put it mildly, strategically ambiguous to an extent that will be litigated for decades to come if it every gets raitfied. Then again, I guess some pseudo-conservatives have no problem with "judicial activism" as long as the activists are ideologically congenial; who believe in federalism as long as elected legislatures don't make the 'wrong' choices; and who don't have the guts to come right out and say they don't actually want homosexuals to have any degree of equality before the law, because they just don't deserve it.
Oh, and this statement was particularly amusing: We know from experience that people love being told by unelected officials what they muts accept in their communities. Well, duh... but, once more, you certainly seem rather keen on using the federal constitution to try and ram your values down other people's throats. More pseudo-conservative hypocrisy - do what I say, don't say what I do.
Craig,
You are worng on two counts: on the one hand it is "arrogant and presumptuous" of you to assume from what I wrote that I would call any marriage between a man and woman not a real marriage, let alone particularize it for two complete strangers.
Furthermore, one must be an arrant knave to claim that not taking an interest in a certain relationship is in fact "arrogant and presumtuous."
But thank you for responding. I know the real difference. I learn from nature, and you learn from appetite. Pity the world.
"I learn from nature, and you learn from appetite. Pity the world."
Really? You learn from "nature"? Is that Nature with a capital "N"? So marriage was invented by Nature? That's a rather bold claim. Leaving aside that appeals to "Nature" are very poor debating form, I'd suggest that following "Nature" is not necessarily a commendable social strategy in most areas of endeavor. Our "Nature" doesn't seem to include exclusive monogamy (nor does our past, if you believe the Old Testament) so appeals to "Nature" when advocating "traditional" marriage seem particularly ineffective. But it seems that no rhetorical dart is too cheap to hurl in this ridiculous debate, so hurl on, saintly Nature-driven being!
As to "appetite", it seems rather strange that you pit it against "nature". Appetite seems to be a prime motivator in nature. It keeps us from starving, it motivates us to excel over our rivals, it encourages us to have sex (terrifying to think of your pure, natural sex, devoid of appetite!) It seems that "appetite" is more natural (if we're going to use such vague, dubious constructs in a debate about rational social structures) than whatever hypothetically "pure" state you seem to be advocating.
Reducing marriage to a government eugenic entitlement program surely doesn't seem to be a great argument for its "sanctity".
And it's quite an appetite suppressant to boot!
vuljean wrote:
You are worng on two counts: on the one hand it is "arrogant and presumptuous" of you to assume from what I wrote that I would call any marriage between a man and woman not a real marriage, let alone particularize it for two complete strangers.
Oh, I see - so you'll bring up 'procreation', but the courage of your convictions comes to a screaming halt when it comes to real people. At least, real heterosexual people. I guess it's very easy to moralise in grand abstractions and collective nouns and smug, condescending little assumptions about the lives of people who don't look like you.
But thank you for responding - the whole FMA debate has really brought home to me the intellectual dishonesty and moral decadence of theocratic pseudo-conservatism in America.
All unmarried adults are free to marry an unmarried adult of the opposite sex as long as they both choose it.
OK. I've just placed an ad on a Christian web site. I am going to pick the ugliest girl on there and try to convince her that I love her and want to marry her.
Yup - I'm gay and it's a complete fraud. Just like any gay person who marries someone of the opposite sex would be a fraud.
But the bigots are practically BEGGING me to do this. So I am.
I bet if I try really hard I could really mess her up mentally. Who knows - if I'm lucky - maybe she'll be so distraught by marrying a gay man that she'll commit suicide. Woo hoo!
But hey - it's the "Christian" thing to do.
And yes - I'm being sarcastic. But the Christian bigots are not. They really DO want me to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's what's freaky.
Funny - the people that insist that marriage is solely about procreation. And then they flip out when we call them "breeders". But they are saying that the ONLY reason that marriage exists is for the kids. If that's true - then they really are just breeders.
I said I wouldn't use that term anymore - but it sounds like that's how "some" straight people view their role in the world. Not that there's anything wrong with it.
But, Craig, honestly, is it ILLEGAL for gays to get married where you live? What would happen if you held a big party, and invited all your friends, and had an openly gay person conduct your wedding? Would the sexuality Nazis burst in and send everyone to prison?
7M keeps offering this same silly example for his contention that that gay marriage isn't illegal, and that this somehow changes the whole discourse.
Marriage requires a license. Those licenses are not issued to two women or two men. Weddings and marriages are not the same thing, yet 7M keeps using the terms interchangeably. Gay people are not able to marry, because they cannot get marriage licenses. It doesn't matter if we all showed up, Moonie style, in white dresses and tuxes, and said our vows. That is merely a ceremony, and we would not be married unless we were issued marriage licenses. The lack of arrests at this event is irrelevant.
Elizabeth:
Thank you for putting the point concisely, eloquently and without the toxic levels of snark I'd probably have used. :)
After all, I could throw a garden party and annoint myself the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. Doesn't mean that it has any legal validity, either spiritual (in terms of Cannon Law) or to the nations that also recognise the Pontiff as the temporal head of state of The Vatican. Though I think that may be a wee bit subtle for Seven Machoes.
marghlar:
the point you say I missed is obviously a key dispute. You go on:
"If that's just appetite, well, the same could be said of my marriage to my wife."
But you go on to speak not of the natural capabilities of you and your wife to have children, but of your intentions. Your thoughts and feelings are not the reason for the institution of marriage. The couple's reasons for marriage are not the state's reason for recognizing marriage.
Palladin:
you are fun, aren't you?
"That's a rather bold claim."
Thank you; none but the brave and all that.
"Leaving aside that appeals to "Nature" are very poor debating form,"
I had never heard that before. It seems necessary in a debate about sexual relations and the value we place on them.
I did not really pit nature against appetite. Appetites need to be controlled if we want to lead happy lives. This control should not destroy them; in fact, destruction occurs more commonly through satiation, when folk get burned out and become cynical.
Also, pointing out that marriage laws have differed over time and place seems to strengthen the argument against same-sex marriage, as the overwhelming majority of rules do not recognize it. The male-female construct seems constant.
craig,
"but the courage of your convictions comes to a screaming halt when it comes to real people."
That's not very nice of you, love. Your red herrings don't scare me. The existence of marriages between a man and woman where one of them is infertile does not mean it's just the same as if it were two mean or two women.
But the point of learning from nature is not that only those people who are fertile should be engaged in sexual activity or be recognized as married.
It is that, since by nature the sexual relations between a man and woman are the only means by which procreation occurs, a thing of paramount wonder, goodness, and necessity (for society), it seems that this form of sexual relation shares in that same goodness. This is at least one way in which the companionship of male and female seems to have more fullness than that which exists between members of the same sex. In comparison all other sexual practices seem misdirected.
"This is at least one way in which the companionship of male and female seems to have more fullness than that which exists between members of the same sex. In comparison all other sexual practices seem misdirected."
Did you ever get fellated? Or if you're a female (Hard to tell, since you're "anonymous") did you ever receive cunnilingus? If so, you're putting things in the wrong holes! Talk about fullness!
Actually, if we're to follow "nature", we'd be sodomizing each other in the streets more often, just like animals do. Did your dog ever hump your leg? He's going to hell! Or maybe, he knows more about "nature" than you do.
In you, dear animals, we see ourselves.
Vuljean:
Well, that's a eloquent weapon of mass distraction but still evasive. Again, could you please point out any jurisdiction in the United States where proof of fertility has to be supplied before a marriage licence is issued? Or where the state refuses to issue marriage licences to the infertile or people who use contraception?
Under all the prentious verbiage, riddled with internal contradictions, it all boils down to you don't like gay people. Well, fine. There were plenty of racists and religious bigots on both side of the family who didn't approve of my black, Protestant father marrying a white Catholic woman twenty-two years his junior. Thankfully, they didn't get much of a say in the decision of two legally competent adults.
The purpose of the amendment is vindictiveness. It is to place gay people in "their place", to let gay people know that the vast majority of Americans think they are unworthy of the equal protection of the law, and to let gay people know that they will forever be second-class citizens in this country.
It's not just driven by hate. It's driven by many reasons (religious orthodoxy, being uncomfortable with gay people, sheer stupidity).
But whatever the reasons - it's still bigotry. And just like those who argued against inter-racial marriage, history will prove them to be bigots.
The people "I" insult????
Have you ever thought that this amendment and the entire process around it, might be considered a personal insult and affront to the entire gay community?
If people want to support this amendment - they are free to do so. But that these people will then turn around and expect to treated with RESPECT by gay people is simiply astounding to me.
Why are they worthy of my respect? You try and pass an amendment that makes me a second class citizen and you want my respect????? I think not.
Craig, please invite me to your garden party, and don't forget to wear a spiffy hat.
Benefits? Your'e joking right?
How about the right to not have to testify against your spouse?
How about the right to marry a foreigner and not have to worry about them getting kicked out of this country?
How about the right to plan a funeral for your spouse, let alone attend it.
How about the right of hospital visitation?
The proposed constitutional amendment would make all of these impossible. And I'm not even getting into the monetary benefits of inheritance, Social Security benefits, etc.
There are over 1000 benefits that come with marriage, most of which cannot be obtained even if you have a lawyer.
Seven - I realize that I've already lost this fight. Amendments are passed in almost every state in this nation.
In the meantime - I'm going to do everything in my power to make life a living hell for these people.
They declared war on me. They should expect war in return.
Looks like the amendment didn't even get 50 votes.
I'll just have a modified "war" in the meantime.
Avoid flyover country (except Illinois and Wisconsin) and refuse to give up my subway seat to old people (who are big supporters of this amendment).
And oh yeah - give wrong directions to tourists. And make fun of them when they ask where the World Trade Center is by responding "Didn't you hear, they were destroyed????"
Marghlar: "What is the objective criteria by which you find race/national origin/ethnicity/gender in the equal protection clause, but not sexual orientation?"
How about this: Race, national origin, ethnicity and gender are not characterized by behavior. Sexuality is.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic here; I'm just looking for some perspective. I've never understood how people can compare sexuality to race in this manner when they seem to be so completely different.
(Incidentally, as we say in Texas, I don't really have a dog in this hunt; I tend to agree with those who say that a decision like this should not rest with the federal government at all but should fall under the domain of the states.)
Kev - It has nothing to do with behaviour. The military bans gay people, even if they are 100% celibate.
Explain to me how that is behaviour?
Gay people are gay even when they are not having sex.
Some seem to think I said people should get married in order to have children, but I did not write that.
What I am saying is that procreation is such a great good that its goodness extends to the act by which it occurs: coitus. Admittedly, I am not making a utilitarian argument, as the point is not to directly encourage procreation. Therefore, I never said the infertile should not get married.
Seven Machos:
Oh, please get off the cross we need the wood for something more useful than indulging your martyr complex.
You wrote:
Well, for the people here who favor gay marriage, it is definitely true that they all think that people who disagree with their goals or their methods simply hate gay people.
No, Seven - there are principled arguments against same-sex marriage that I take seriously, because they're made by serious people in a civil and thoughtful manner. But if people like you and Vuljean are going to enagage in hysterical and tendentious rhetoric in a public forum, then please excuse the rest of us if we take you at face value.
And more:
But no, because so many gay leaders are also leftists, and the only authority leftists will accept is the State. Why do you care if the State condones what you do, so long as it does not oppose it?
So, you're a libertarian who thinks the state shouldn't regulate 'marriage' above and beyond any other contract between two consenting, competent adults? Well, again, that's another principled argument but it sure doesn't sound like the one you've been making at the top of your lungs. And it certainly doesn't sound like anything I've been hearing from FMA proponents.
Also it's rather funny how you're willing to lump all FMA opponents as "leftists". Well, as I've explained above it seems to me FMA proponents wouldn't recognise a conservative principle if it bit them in the arse. I can understand why most of the conservatives I know - decent people who place principle over party and aren't necessarily supporters of same-sex marriage - see the FMA for the cynical scam it is. And come November, they will be saying "a plague on both your houses" and staying home.
Seven, I'm having trouble digesting the shock and horror you feign at people's stereotyping of FMA supporters. Throughout these comments you say things like "for the people here who favor gay marriage, it is definitely true that they all think that people who disagree with their goals or their methods simply hate gay people" (emphasis mine) and proceed to call us everything from "facists" to "ridiculous elitists" to "intolerant leftists" to "tyrants" to "would-be dictators" to "dumber than a box of hair" (extra points for creativity there!)... and all that from the safe bunker of an anonymous blogger account. I've rarely come across a more profound model of a principled, fair and respectful debate style. Or not.
marghalr:
was it a buick?
I'm not allowed to legally marry a man today, because I am also a man.
But what if I were to get a sex-change.
What then?
Could I then marry a man? Well - that seems silly. The only way I can marry a man is if I chop my dick off?
Could I marry a female? Hmm, that would sure look like a same-sex couple to me.
Or could I marry nobody at all?
Since the amendment is so freaking vague, you can imagine that this would lead to lawsuits galore.
Downtownlad: "It has nothing to do with behaviour. The military bans gay people, even if they are 100% celibate."
But I'm pretty sure that there are probably more than a few 100% celibate gay people serving in the military as we speak; wasn't that part of the point of the whole "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
" Gay people are gay even when they are not having sex."
But would they be discriminated against for simply having these feelings? I'm trying really hard to see your point here, but I'm having trouble seeing past the place where behavior comes into play. Having certain feelings is one thing, but acting on those feelings can be something completely different, right?
Of course they are discriminated for simply HAVING these feelings.
The largest employer in this nation has an active policy of finding out who is gay - and then has a policy that they MUST be fired if that is discovered.
They scour myspace and if they happen to find that you mention you are gay on that site, the largest employer proceeds to fire you. If you are caught holding hands with another guy, you are then fired.
What do you not understand about this? The largest employer in the country has fired 10,000 people in the last decade for being gay. That employer is PROUD of this achievements.
10,000 does not equal "a few".
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा