Gay Marriage

[molson]

So there's the religious argument against gay marriage, but what was the recent Democratic party opposition to it all about? It wasn't all that long ago that a majority of Democratic legislators opposed gay marriage - Dems in both houses voted 2-1 in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Was the Dem opposition religious-based as well? Dems weren't citing religion for policy stances in any other context that recently, as far as I remember. So what was the basis of their argument against gay marriage? And why has that presumably more moderate argument against gay marriage (whatever it was) entirely disappeared, leaving us with pretty much only religious opposition?

[Kodos]

Probably Democrats didn't want to give Republicans something to drive conservative turnout in elections.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by molson

So there's the religious argument against gay marriage, but what was the recent Democratic party opposition to it all about? It wasn't all that long ago that a majority of Democratic legislators opposed gay marriage - Dems in both houses voted 2-1 in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Was the Dem opposition religious-based as well? Dems weren't citing religion for policy stances in any other context that recently, as far as I remember. So what was the basis of their argument against gay marriage? And why has that presumably more moderate argument against gay marriage (whatever it was) entirely disappeared, leaving us with pretty much only religious opposition?

17 years is an eternity. People are afraid of sudden change. Incremental change is what this country does best.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Marriage is gay.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Subby

17 years is an eternity. People are afraid of sudden change. Incremental change is what this country does best.

I get that, but I'm just curious what Obama, Gore, Clinton, Biden, etc would say in 1996 (or in some cases, much later), regarding why they oppose gay marriage? I don't think they would have said, "it's against god's law." What was the more moderate, liberal-friendly opposition to gay marriage that has been obliterated to the point we don't even remember what it was? The gay rights movement has done a excellent job making it them v. religion (which is always a battle the "them" is going to win eventually), but obviously there was more to it than that in the not-so-distant past. (Edit: The only thing I specifically remember was from one of the debates, Gore said, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, I always have believed that.") I guess it was just as simple as that, a cultural defense of the term marriage with maybe the slight but unspoken nod to religion?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

So there's the religious argument against gay marriage, but what was the recent Democratic party opposition to it all about? It wasn't all that long ago that a majority of Democratic legislators opposed gay marriage - Dems in both houses voted 2-1 in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Was the Dem opposition religious-based as well? Dems weren't citing religion for policy stances in any other context that recently, as far as I remember. So what was the basis of their argument against gay marriage? And why has that presumably more moderate argument against gay marriage (whatever it was) entirely disappeared, leaving us with pretty much only religious opposition?

I think the biggest argument was either religion of the Democrats, or the prevailing religion of the electorate. Those that didn't oppose gay marriage stayed pretty quiet until popular opinion shifted.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Probably Democrats didn't want to give Republicans something to drive conservative turnout in elections.

It was probably about winning elections. Even in 2004 it was by far the popular opinion in the country that same sex marriage should be illegal. In the 2004 elections there were 11 states that put it up on the ballot (including Ohio in an effort to drive social conservatives to the polls there) and all of them passed, with 9 getting 60% or more of the vote.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

I get that, but I'm just curious what Obama, Gore, Clinton, Biden, etc would say in 1996 (or in some cases, much later), regarding why they oppose gay marriage? I don't think they would have said, "it's against god's law." What was the more moderate, liberal-friendly opposition to gay marriage that has been obliterated to the point we don't even remember what it was? The gay rights movement has done a excellent job making it them v. religion (which is always a battle the "them" is going to win eventually), but obviously there was more to it than that in the not-so-distant past. (Edit: The only thing I specifically remember was from one of the debates, Gore said, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, I always have believed that.") I guess it was just as simple as that, a cultural defense of the term marriage with maybe the slight but unspoken nod to religion?

I think for most Democrats, they were for gay equal rights, but were still a bit squeamish on marriage equality. I think its been because of the work of gay rights folk that a lot of those Democratic leaders realized that their past views didn't really make any sense and so they changed.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think for most Democrats, they were for gay equal rights, but were still a bit squeamish on marriage equality. I think its been because of the work of gay rights folk that a lot of those Democratic leaders realized that their past views didn't really make any sense and so they changed.

It's probably part this and part fear of losing elections if they said they supported legalizing same sex marriage. In theory sure it might seem like it was best to say they supported it, but since legalizing same sex marriage isn't something they'd realistically be able to do anyway it was probably better to play it safe and have a better chance at being elected.

[Lathum]

I would love to hear some of the people against it actually provide reason why. I know we have seen a few responses but not many.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I would love to hear some of the people against it actually provide reason why. I know we have seen a few responses but not many.

Don't hold your breath.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I get that, but I'm just curious what Obama, Gore, Clinton, Biden, etc would say in 1996 (or in some cases, much later), regarding why they oppose gay marriage? I don't think they would have said, "it's against god's law." What was the more moderate, liberal-friendly opposition to gay marriage that has been obliterated to the point we don't even remember what it was? The gay rights movement has done a excellent job making it them v. religion (which is always a battle the "them" is going to win eventually), but obviously there was more to it than that in the not-so-distant past. (Edit: The only thing I specifically remember was from one of the debates, Gore said, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, I always have believed that.") I guess it was just as simple as that, a cultural defense of the term marriage with maybe the slight but unspoken nod to religion?

They mainly danced around it. Some like Clinton used the "State's should determine on their own" mantra. Seems they just looked at the polls and tried to come up with reasons for opposing it that was vague and didn't look like bigotry. Here is Clinton's statement on DOMA for an idea.

President Clinton's statement on DOMA

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Don't hold your breath.

I always thought this summed it up pretty well.

[Sun Tzu]

Darling, will you give me the ultimate honor of taking my hand in civil unionage?

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I would love to hear some of the people against it actually provide reason why. I know we have seen a few responses but not many.

Actually, my reasons why are pretty simple.

Homosexuality is ethically wrong. The government should not be in the business of condoning or sanctioning that which is ethically wrong. End of story.

Now, you may disagree with my first statement, in which case, you disagree with my conclusion. I get that. I figure we can still be friends.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by revrew

Actually, my reasons why are pretty simple.

Homosexuality is ethically wrong. The government should not be in the business of condoning or sanctioning that which is ethically wrong. End of story.

Now, you may disagree with my first statement, in which case, you disagree with my conclusion. I get that. I figure we can still be friends.

Government should not be in the business of enforcing the ethical beliefs of one group when they infringe upon the human rights of the individual (presuming you still believe that homosexuals, although ethically wrong, are human beings?).

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by revrew

Actually, my reasons why are pretty simple.

Homosexuality is ethically wrong. The government should not be in the business of condoning or sanctioning that which is ethically wrong. End of story.

Now, you may disagree with my first statement, in which case, you disagree with my conclusion. I get that. I figure we can still be friends.

Not withstanding the horrific consequences of asking the Government to enforce ethical beliefs that infringe upon the rights of consenting individuals, are we to assume you draw your first statement from the Bible? If not, what led you to believe that homosexuality is ethically wrong?

[DaddyTorgo]

Eating anything other than spaghetti is ethically wrong*. That's what the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me in his book.

*This statement is of equal validity to rev's. Therefore rev is ethically wrong for not eating spaghetti 100% of the time. So therefore the government should not be condoning or sanctioning people who eat anything other than spaghetti. We should force-feed people spaghetti.

OR

Both of these statements are based upon an equal amount of facts (none), and should not be enforced by the government.

You choose rev.

No...seriously...I want you to choose.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Eating anything other than spaghetti is ethically wrong. That's what the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me in his book.

--This statement is of equal validity to rev's. Therefore rev is ethically wrong for not eating spaghetti 100% of the time.

OR

They're both equally BS.

DT, don't get me wrong - I agree with your logic. But I'd like to hear his answer on how he determined homosexuality is ethically wrong.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

DT, don't get me wrong - I agree with your logic. But I'd like to hear his answer on how he determined homosexuality is ethically wrong.

You know what he'll say though. Same thing he's said before.

And I just got off a red-eye from the West Coast after being tired out playing with my nieces for a week, I'm in no mood to put up with BS. In fact, I'm cutting a swathe of destruction across all sorts of BS today and telling it like it is IRL and here.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by revrew

I figure we can still be friends.

We can, but I'm not going to kiss you or anything like that. We're not that kind of friends.

Here's a quick question to ponder when it comes to gays & morality/ethics. What's worse, to be true to what they feel and honest with themselves... or to go out and live a lie, marry someone of the opposite sex just because it's the proper thing to do?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

We can, but I'm not going to kiss you or anything like that. We're not that kind of friends.

Here's a quick question to ponder when it comes to gays & morality/ethics. What's worse, to be true to what they feel and honest with themselves... or to go out and live a lie, marry someone of the opposite sex just because it's the proper thing to do?

The obvious answer is that they should stay in the closet and die lonely, miserable individuals.

[revrew]

Yes, of course I get my standard of ethics from the Bible.

And I understand that many on this board and in the world reject the Bible as a standard of ethics. I get it. I understand and expect that they will therefore seek different rules for society, vote differently on various issues, and so forth. I also expect that, in time, if it's not already here, my views on ethics will be in the minority, and society and laws in a (somewhat) democratic society will necessarily change to reflect that.

However, there are a pair of fundamental flaws with some of your (collectively) more flippant responses.

First, the government is always in the business of enforcing ethical beliefs. Every law on our books is a reflection of a moral evaluation - is personal property a fundamental right? If so, our laws will be more capitalist in nature. If not, our laws will tend toward communism. Even our taxes are a moral statement that a portion of our personal property is better spent for collective purposes than individual gain. The very existence of a tax is a repudiation of anarchist ethics (and some of Ayn Rand's, but that's a tangent).

So the only real question is whose ethics will be enforced by the sword of government (upon consenting adults), and what basis will be used for determining ethics.

The second flaw is the question of what determines "human rights." Where do our rights come from? Who determines what is and isn't a "right"? (How is marriage for ANYONE, hetero or homosexual a right? Where's the basis for that?)

America's Founding Fathers, in the Dec of Independence, explicitly stated that nature and nature's God were the source of these rights and that we were "endowed by our Creator" with these rights.

Yet you (per my 2nd paragraph above) reject that Creator. Where, then, do rights come from?

I fear your answer would be little more than popular opinion. Yikes. That's scary. Popular opinion in Nazi Germany or the segregationist South was little protection of human rights. Where then, do you get the idea that homosexuals (or heterosexuals, for that matter) have a "right" to marry?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by revrew

Where then, do you get the idea that homosexuals (or heterosexuals, for that matter) have a "right" to marry?

Its not about the right to marry, it's about the rights of two adults to enter into a legally binding contract.

[molson]

Originally Posted by revrew

Yes, of course I get my standard of ethics from the Bible.

Do you rely on Leviticus for your views on homosexuality? If so, do you follow the other old Jewish law from Leviticus? Or is it the reference in Paul's letter to the Romans? There's a few different interpretations of the latter, it's certainly not very clear or prominent. It's just odd to me that homosexuality is such a big "thing" for so many Christians based on that one reference. It seems to be good old fashion heterosexual sin is dealt with MUCH more prominently in the bible.

I do agree with everything else you said about law just being codified ethics. Religion is just one place to draw ethics from, I don't see it as any more or less valid than anyplace anyone else gets their ethics from, whether it be from their parents, experiences, books they read, whatever.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by revrew

Actually, my reasons why are pretty simple.

Homosexuality is ethically wrong. The government should not be in the business of condoning or sanctioning that which is ethically wrong. End of story.

Now, you may disagree with my first statement, in which case, you disagree with my conclusion. I get that. I figure we can still be friends.

So is premarital sex. Hell, even sex for anything other than procreation...

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

The obvious answer is that they should stay in the closet and die lonely, miserable individuals.

True. And marry our sisters while longing for the touch of another man.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by revrew

Yes, of course I get my standard of ethics from the Bible.

That's a fair answer. But shouldn't your beliefs on this also carry over to other things the Bible finds ethically wrong? Premarital sex should be illegal, am I correct? Same for divorce?

There are a lot of things the Bible finds ethically wrong. Tattoos, wearing polyester, or eating a lobster for dinner. If you're consistent in your beliefs, we shouldn't be condoning any of these things.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Its not about the right to marry, it's about the rights of two adults to enter into a legally binding contract.

To be fair, I think it's been established that people want gay "marriage", not just gay civil unions/contracts. That identification is important to people. I'm sure you could get a lot more conservative Christians on board if all anybody wanted was binding contracts with no reference to marriage.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Eating anything other than spaghetti is ethically wrong*. That's what the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me in his book.

*This statement is of equal validity to rev's. Therefore rev is ethically wrong for not eating spaghetti 100% of the time. So therefore the government should not be condoning or sanctioning people who eat anything other than spaghetti. We should force-feed people spaghetti.

OR

Both of these statements are based upon an equal amount of facts (none), and should not be enforced by the government.

You choose rev.

No...seriously...I want you to choose.

From what I gather from your example you are saying that any claim of "ethical wrongness" is merely a relative statement. That the government should not make any act illegal because it is merely viewed as unethical by some percentage of the population? There seems to be too many of these laws now (smoking, prostitution, gambling, hunting, etc) to dismiss this reasoning.

I think a better tack would be to ask: because this was framed as an ethical issue and not a moral one, what evidence would you accept that would change your mind?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

So is premarital sex. Hell, even sex for anything other than procreation...

Heck, God explicitly talks about how pissed off he gets for using the pull out technique in the Bible.

[DanGarion]

Honestly it seems like most people against gay marriage are really just against the gay sex part.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Heck, God explicitly talks about how pissed off he gets for using the pull out technique in the Bible.

Don't spill my seed, son! No masturbation for you!

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

To be fair, I think it's been established that people want gay "marriage", not just gay civil unions/contracts. That identification is important to people. I'm sure you could get a lot more conservative Christians on board if all anybody wanted was binding contracts with no reference to marriage.

They want the same rights that every heterosexual couple receive under the law. It's called marriage so gay people want marriage as recognized by the state. No one is forcing religious groups to recognize it just to live with the fact that hetero and homosexual couples are the same under the law.

It's really a waste of our country's time to be going on and on about something that is so simple.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's a fair answer. But shouldn't your beliefs on this also carry over to other things the Bible finds ethically wrong? Premarital sex should be illegal, am I correct? Same for divorce?

There are a lot of things the Bible finds ethically wrong. Tattoos, wearing polyester, or eating a lobster for dinner. If you're consistent in your beliefs, we shouldn't be condoning any of these things.

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating homosexuality be made illegal. Simply that extending the benefits of marriage to it shouldn't become legal.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

They want the same rights that every heterosexual couple receive under the law. It's called marriage so gay people want marriage as recognized by the state. No one is forcing religious groups to recognize it just to live with the fact that hetero and homosexual couples are the same under the law.

It's really a waste of our country's time to be going on and on about something that is so simple.

Right, it's more than just a "contract", that's my point.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by revrew

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating homosexuality be made illegal. Simply that extending the benefits of marriage to it shouldn't become legal.

Why? If something is wrong its wrong.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

So is premarital sex. Hell, even sex for anything other than procreation...

Yes. So I likewise wouldn't support government tax breaks for cohabitation, wouldn't support unique privileges given to practicers of adultery or bestiality, wouldn't support tax credits for frequent masturbation.

Really, I'm not so ridiculous as so many of you attempt to make me.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Heck, God explicitly talks about how pissed off he gets for using the pull out technique in the Bible.

Well, in the old testament. Plenty of Christians believe that the Old Jewish law went away with Jesus came along. That's why they don't abide by the law of Leviticus, it has no application to them. Even most Christians don't see the bible isn't this big coherent book of laws to follow. It was written by humans over a huge period of time. If someone were to just follow the teachings of Jesus they wouldn't necessarily resemble a modern American "conservative christian", they'd more resemble a hippie.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

Right, it's more than just a "contract", that's my point.

But as far as the state is concerned, that is all it should be. A contract between two consenting adults.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

Well, in the old testament. Plenty of Christians believe that the Old Jewish law went away with Jesus came along. That's why they don't abide by the law of Leviticus, it has no application to them. Even most Christians don't see the bible isn't this big coherent book of laws to follow. It was written by humans over a huge period of time.

So they pick-and-choose what they want to follow and then try to make life hard for people who don't see things the same way as they do...

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by mckerney

I always thought this summed it up pretty well.

Haha! Yes it did.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Why? If something is wrong its wrong.

Well, then we move beyond ethics to get into the question of what is the proper role of government. Is it the proper role of government to make every sin a crime punishable by law?

Should a child who fibs to mom to get out of a grounding be remitted to juvenile hall? Should a man who lusts after a woman serve jail time? Should a woman who gossips about her neighbor have her tongue cut out?

No, I don't think it's the government's job to make punishable all unethical actions.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

But as far as the state is concerned, that is all it should be. A contract between two consenting adults.

Whatever you think it "should be", it IS more currently. It IS about the "right to marry", it's not just about contracts. That's the whole problem with the civil unions.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

So they pick-and-choose what they want to follow and then try to make life hard for people who don't see things the same way as they do...

Depends on who you mean by "they". Not all Christians or believers or people who draw any kind of inspiration from the bible are the same. And the "pick and choose" complaint I think shows a misunderstanding of the bible generally. It's not one big book "written by god". Edit: It's OK for someone to be inspired by, or even believe in, the teachings of Jesus and also not follow the old Jewish law of Leviticus. That doesn't make them a hypocrite.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by revrew

Well, then we move beyond ethics to get into the question of what is the proper role of government. Is it the proper role of government to make every sin a crime punishable by law?

Should a child who fibs to mom to get out of a grounding be remitted to juvenile hall? Should a man who lusts after a woman serve jail time? Should a woman who gossips about her neighbor have her tongue cut out?

No, I don't think it's the government's job to make punishable all unethical actions.

So why single out marriage?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

Depends on who you mean by "they". Not all Christians or believers or people who draw any kind of inspiration from the bible are the same. And the "pick and choose" complaint I think shows a misunderstanding of the bible generally. It's not one big book "written by god".

But you have groups of people who use it as the basis to deny rights to other groups of people.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by revrew

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating homosexuality be made illegal. Simply that extending the benefits of marriage to it shouldn't become legal.

But you're advocating gay marriage be illegal. I guess I don't get why your stance on banning things that are ethically wrong doesn't carry over to other things that are ethically wrong according to the Bible. I mean if gay marriage is illegal as you say it should be, why not masturbation, divorce, and premarital sex? Why not homosexuality? You've already said it's ethically wrong.

It just feels like you're cherry picking one little thing from the Bible and ignoring the rest.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

But you have groups of people who use it as the basis to deny rights to other groups of people.

Rights are just codification of ethics too. You, me, and everyone else picks and chooses what to base their ethics on and to what extent to codify them in the law.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by revrew

No, I don't think it's the government's job to make punishable all unethical actions.

So which ones are punishable? You are the one that made the claim that government should not be condoning or sanctioning things that are ethically wrong. This directly contradicts your earlier statement.