Support for gay marriage grows amongst former opponents

[Perd Hapley]

Nor do I understand the rationalization for it not being so.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

My guess would be that polygamy is too closely associated with the dreaded patriarchy for the Left to get too terribly excited about.

Then again, cognitive dissonance doesn't really bother them all that much.

[230RN]

From Hawkmoon: (System-deleted quote)

Counterbalance: As opposed to the two to five millenia of indoctrination by the religious institutions?

Me, personally?  I don't think it's any of my business what kind of relationship two people have, as long as they don't bug me about it.  And I was never sure it was anybody else's business, either.

AJ Dual remarked, (System-deleted quote)

Ayup.  The zeal is the deal.  On both sides.

Terry

That's not counterbalance; that's counter-logic. "The religious institutions" somehow communicated with each other for 5000 years, and agreed to all teach that marriage was heterosexual? That's conspiracy-mongering.

How about people just accept that marriage is heterosexual because it makes sense for it to be?

Oh, thanks for re-directing my thinking which was developed over time and research.

I thought the parallels were because religious systems all independently discovered just about the same human hot-buttons, reward systems, control devices (e.g., sex and food), punishment and forgiveness schemes, and apologetics mechanisms.  Although they often borrowed freely from each other on details anyhow.

So I guess I'm not just a conspiracy theorist on that one and I slightly resent that remark.

However, I forgive you.

fistful, I don't want to argue with you on this.  The last time around I found we were simply arguing from different premises which were irreconcilable --you from Biblical and emotional sources which I regard as irrelevant, me from the Missourian outlook of "show me."

As I said, like others, I simply do not see why marriage, heterosexual or multiple or whatever, is any of the federal government's business except for legal reasons of contracting where appropriate, i.e. tax-wise, government health plans, etc.

I did my work on it.  You did your work on it.

And as much as I hate the phrase, we must agree to disagree.

With, however, high respect,

Terry

[Perd Hapley]

The last time around I found we were simply arguing from different premises which were irreconcilable --you from Biblical and emotional sources

  That is false. I don't recall using the Bible to explain why marriage has been uniformly heterosexual in human history, or using it to argue that same-sex unions shouldn't be legally recognized.

As far as emotion is concerned, that is your own interpretation of my comments, and not really a charitable one.

[makattak]

That is false. I don't recall using the Bible to explain why marriage has been uniformly heterosexual in human history, or using it to argue that same-sex unions shouldn't be legally recognized.

Yes, but, you see, even though you don't use it as reasons in your arguments and never reference it in the logical explanation for your beliefs, they KNOW it's all because of Jesus.

See, your arguments don't matter. All that matters is your motivation, or, that is, the motivation they are CERTAIN you have.

It's cause you believe in your skygod and think he's going to rain hellfire and brimstone down on the country if we allow teh gayzors to marry. What you say is irrelevant.

[MillCreek]

Germany legalized same-sex marriage today.

[Perd Hapley]

Yes, but, you see, even though you don't use it as reasons in your arguments and never reference it in the logical explanation for your beliefs, they KNOW it's all because of Jesus.

See, your arguments don't matter. All that matters is your motivation, or, that is, the motivation they are CERTAIN you have.

It's cause you believe in your skygod and think he's going to rain hellfire and brimstone down on the country if we allow teh gayzors to marry. What you say is irrelevant.

This is exactly what happens when one makes a non-religious case against whatever sex/sexuality/gender-related leftism is in question. Much of what one says is ignored, and instead one is asked to explain, account for, apologize for whatever religious/Biblical argument has been, or could be made for one's position.

[GigaBuist]

I don't recall using the Bible to explain why marriage has been uniformly heterosexual in human history...

Uniform?  You might want to pick a different adjective.  Marriage has not been 100% heterosexual over the course of human history.  You'll generally find homosexual marriages in some way shape or form at any point in recorded history.  Well, that or people killing others for being homosexual.  When you have the later the former is a bit impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

[Perd Hapley]

Uniform?  You might want to pick a different adjective.  Marriage has not been 100% heterosexual over the course of human history.  You'll generally find homosexual marriages in some way shape or form at any point in recorded history.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

No, "uniform" will do. I didn't say that no same-sex marriage had ever, ever been recognized, until Obama ruined America. Had I wanted to say that marriage was 100.000000% heterosexual at all places and times until the hippies took it over, I could very well have said as much. I didn't. That's not the point.*

The point, if one bothers to consider the context, is that the uniform heterosexuality of marriage cannot have been a matter of an evil religious patriarchy repressing the homo's. To propose this, as some like to do, is to suggest that Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha, the Dalai Lama, Zoroaster, Confucius, Akhenaten, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Wallace D. Fard Muhammad, and L. Ron Hubbard got together to craft a conspiracy against the homosek-shals. Or that their various followers maintained such a conspiracy for thousands of years of human history, over wide swaths of the globe.

It's just silly. Marriage is heterosexual, because marriage suggests itself for heterosexual pairings. Homosexuality (whether good, bad, or indifferent) does not make society sit up say, "We'd better encourage that fine, young couple to stay together. Think of what trouble we'd be in if all the LGBTQIA+%$&^ community split up with their partners!"

Well, that or people killing others for being homosexual.  When you have the later the former is a bit impossible.

Are you trying to use the fact that people considered homosexuality a capital offense as evidence that it was also considered to be grounds for holy matrimony?  



*Also, if you look a little more closely at that Wikipedia article, it doesn't say that every example of a "union" that it gives was actually considered a marriage.

[GigaBuist]

No, "uniform" will do. I didn't say that no same-sex marriage had ever, ever been recognized, until Obama ruined America. Had I wanted to say that marriage was 100.000000% heterosexual at all places and times until the hippies took it over, I could very well have said as much. I didn't. That's not the point.*

You might want to revisit your definition of uniform then.

The point, if one bothers to consider the context, is that the uniform heterosexuality of marriage cannot have been a matter of an evil religious patriarchy repressing the homo's. To propose this, as some like to do, is to suggest that Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha, the Dalai Lama, Zoroaster, Confucius, Akhenaten, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Wallace D. Fard Muhammad, and L. Ron Hubbard got together to craft a conspiracy against the homosek-shals. Or that their various followers maintained such a conspiracy for thousands of years of human history, over wide swaths of the globe.

It would be silly to promote such a conspiracy especially because homosexual marriage and/or relationships have been accepted in belief systems descended from some of those religious leaders.

It's just silly. Marriage is heterosexual, because marriage suggests itself for heterosexual pairings.

Er, no, it doesn't.  Heterosexual single partner pairings work well to keep the human species alive but it is not the only positive route to human pairing.   Marriage is generally (not uniformly) heterosexual because that's generally how people work. 

[Firethorn]

I wonder if it is less "support" and more "don't give a *expletive deleted*it"?

Pretty much this.  I mean, I debate just about everything, but I originally opposed gay marriage, then eventually moved to a position of , as you say, not giving a *expletive deleted*it.

Mostly because of people acting poorly around gay people who just wanted to live their lives.

I'm not worried about a business refusing to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple.  I get irked at things like a hospital ignoring a medical power of attorney held by the healthier partner in a gay couple, allowing the estranged parents to take over medical decisions and deny the partner visitation rights.

Sure, the gay guy eventually won the lawsuit, but by then his partner was dead.  Which would you prefer, being with your loved one as he passes, or some money a couple years down the road?

For the sake of argument, the percentage of the population that is gay/lesbian is around 3%. That's roughly 9,642,000 out of 321,400,000 people in the U.S.

Should we use this excuse to deny Native Americans the right to marry?  They're only 1% of the population...  Governments need to be able to deal with edge cases, unlikely events, etc...

That's where freedom of religion comes into play. You can call it "millenia [sic] of indoctrination by the religious institutions," but [most of those] those who believe in the Bible (Episcopalians excepted) don't need any "indoctrination." We can just open the book and read what it says.

Statistically speaking, from what I've read those that shout the loudest tend to be the ones who crack the book open the least.

How about people just accept that marriage is heterosexual because it makes sense for it to be?

Lots of varieties of marriage out there if you go looking world-wide.

On the other hand, I think making a choice to not bake that cake is stupid. Selling a cake to a couple of guys who are going to marry each other no more constitutes approval of what they do with it than selling a jar to some artsy type constitutes approval of Piss Christ.

I take this view as well, but I acknowledge that, especially in the wedding industry, you have a surprising number of people who view it as a religious calling to help people celebrate their matrimony and such.  And since they're mixing their religion into it...

My JP status is less important to me than my faith. So far, I have not been asked, so I haven't had to make a choice. Should the situation arise, I will have to resign my commission.

Why?  As a Justice of the Peace, you are acting to fulfill the government's role in various ways.  This means that you are NOT to inject your personal beliefs into it, especially not religion.  Separation of Church and State, remember?

You marry two people, you're doing it under the government's rules, not religious rules.

So, yeah, if you feel that strongly about it, resign,  but consider - are you really doing anybody any good by refusing?

Part of the problem with the clerk in Kentucky was that she was refusing to let any of her clerks do the gay marriage certificates.  The net result being that the office itself couldn't fulfill its functions.  That's a problem.

It's just silly. Marriage is heterosexual, because marriage suggests itself for heterosexual pairings. Homosexuality (whether good, bad, or indifferent) does not make society sit up say, "We'd better encourage that fine, young couple to stay together. Think of what trouble we'd be in if all the LGBTQIA+%$&^ community split up with their partners!"

Then do you support polygamous marriages as well?  Lots of history for them.  Do you disapprove of mixed-race marriages?  Lots of opposition to those in relatively recent history. 

Just because one type of pairing is predominant doesn't mean that less common types need to be banned, unless you can describe the harm in doing so, and said harm is extreme enough to justify the restriction.

If the gays want to formalize their relationship and gain the benefits that the government version of 'marriage' is*, why shouldn't they? 
* Basically, a legal marriage involves a large number of automatic contracts, powers of attorney, inheritance rules, and numerous other legal quirks that would cost thousands separately, but costs about $35 when done as a marriage license.

[White Horseradish]

If the gays want to formalize their relationship and gain the benefits that the government version of 'marriage' is*, why shouldn't they? 
* Basically, a legal marriage involves a large number of automatic contracts, powers of attorney, inheritance rules, and numerous other legal quirks that would cost thousands separately, but costs about $35 when done as a marriage license.

Don't forget  a few that cannot be gained by any contract. For example, avoiding being compelled to testify against your partner.

[Perd Hapley]

Then do you support polygamous marriages as well?  Lots of history for them.

Do I support them? Legally, or morally? They've obviously much more claim to being actual marriages than exclusionary, one-sex-only, homosexual unions. You can't justify same-sex "marriages" by saying, "but mah poligamey!" That's like justifying a 100% tax on birthday presents by invoking the poll tax.

Do you disapprove of mixed-race marriages?  Lots of opposition to those in relatively recent history.  

So my appeal to the broad sweep of world history is supposed to make me sympathetic to a narrow-minded, racial-purity view of marriage? Explain how you reached that conclusion.

In actuality, the Left has claimed (when it suits them) that marriage is defined by "society's needs," which would be a pretty handy basis for anyone who wants to nix mixed marriages. Of course, it also destroys any notion of a right to marriage...

Just because one type of pairing is predominant doesn't mean that less common types need to be banned, unless you can describe the harm in doing so, and said harm is extreme enough to justify the restriction.

Misunderstanding one: Opposite sex pairings aren't just "predominant." They are the reason why marriage developed in the first place. (If you take a secular view, at least.) As I've pointed out over and over again, homosexual pairings don't affect society in any way that encourages us to recognize them one way or the other. Why do you want the government to get involved in the private lives of two homosexuals?

Misunderstanding two: I'm not the one who wanted government to get involved. I wanted government to stay out of homosexual relationships. It's called "libertarianism."

If the gays want to formalize their relationship and gain the benefits that the government version of 'marriage' is*, why shouldn't they?

Seems obvious - because marriage always includes both sexes. If you exclude one of the sexes, then you don't meet the requirements.

And marriage is not about people deciding to get "benefits," anyway. Two homosexuals want benefits for no particular reason? The libertarian response is, "Meh, no thanks. Have a nice life."

[lupinus]

So then would you support the libertarian answer of getting government out of marriage entirely? Because sure, I can get behind that. Id much prefer it actually.

But I've also come to the view that as long as government is going to rubber stamp relationships and grant certain advantages it shouldn't merely do so for the types it approves of and leave everyone else hanging in the breeze with no access to the same.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Hawkmoon]

Quote from: Hawkmoon
My JP status is less important to me than my faith. So far, I have not been asked, so I haven't had to make a choice. Should the situation arise, I will have to resign my commission.

Why?  As a Justice of the Peace, you are acting to fulfill the government's role in various ways.  This means that you are NOT to inject your personal beliefs into it, especially not religion.  Separation of Church and State, remember?

You marry two people, you're doing it under the government's rules, not religious rules.

Yes, I do remember. That's why if the situation arises I will have to resign my commission.

So, yeah, if you feel that strongly about it, resign,  but consider - are you really doing anybody any good by refusing?

Yes, I am. I would be able to look myself in the mirror and know that I didn't surrender my morality to the tyranny of the masses. I see that as a good thing.

Part of the problem with the clerk in Kentucky was that she was refusing to let any of her clerks do the gay marriage certificates.  The net result being that the office itself couldn't fulfill its functions.  That's a problem.

I agree. She was wrong. She went beyond following her conscience, and attempted to impose her religious views on the civil system. That wasn't "part of" the problem with that clerk. That WAS the problem with that clerk.

If the gays want to formalize their relationship and gain the benefits that the government version of 'marriage' is*, why shouldn't they?
* Basically, a legal marriage involves a large number of automatic contracts, powers of attorney, inheritance rules, and numerous other legal quirks that would cost thousands separately, but costs about $35 when done as a marriage license.

Gay people have had the right to enjoy all the legal benefits of the "governmental version of 'marriage' " in most, if not all, states for a long time. It's called "civil union." Civil unions convey ALL the legal benefits of marriage. But that wasn't good enough for them ... they insist on being allowed to call it a "marriage." That's where I -- and many others -- have a problem.

[Ben]

So then would you support the libertarian answer of getting government out of marriage entirely? Because sure, I can get behind that. Id much prefer it actually.

But I've also come to the view that as long as government is going to rubber stamp relationships and grant certain advantages it shouldn't merely do so for the types it approves of and leave everyone else hanging in the breeze with no access to the same.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

I suppose it's my single guy bias showing, and I might get flamed, but not only would I like to see the gov get out of the marriage licensing business, but I would also like them to get out of the "married and married with children get special tax and other benefits" business. That in itself would about quash much of the "gay marriage" debate since a major part of that seems to be related to getting the same spousal and other family benefits that hetro married people and families get. Again, it's my own bias, but I just don't see why people should get extra tax breaks for either being married or having kids. These are choices people make. I'm not sure how they relate to said people getting to pay less taxes than a single person, all other things being equal.

Private businesses can then either pay or not pay for things like health insurance for whoever they want to, or don't want to cover.

[lupinus]

I suppose it's my single guy bias showing, and I might get flamed, but not only would I like to see the gov get out of the marriage licensing business, but I would also like them to get out of the "married and married with children get special tax and other benefits" business. That in itself would about quash much of the "gay marriage" debate since a major part of that seems to be related to getting the same spousal and other family benefits that hetro married people and families get. Again, it's my own bias, but I just don't see why people should get extra tax breaks for either being married or having kids. These are choices people make. I'm not sure how they relate to said people getting to pay less taxes than a single person, all other things being equal.

Private businesses can then either pay or not pay for things like health insurance for whoever they want to, or don't want to cover.

I for one agree entirely with that. If you get rid of the incentives and marriage licensing all together than there's no need to have the debates on who can and can't legally get married.

My main change on the issue is simply that, as long as the government is going to legally recognize/license marriages they should be doing so for all consenting adults that wish to be married regardless of other factors.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[dogmush]

If you get rid of the incentives and marriage licensing all together than there's no need to have the debates on who can and can't legally get married.

The argument is that civil society  incentivizes a man and a woman getting married and (hopefully) raising children because continued additions to society from stable homes results in benefits to the society.  Additionally, just having stable homes and families in society is good for that society in a number of ways.  That argument is not completely without merit.

The question is whether a gay "marriage" can provide the same kind of benefits to society and is worth the same incentives.  That question is still, as far as I know, an open one.

[Perd Hapley]

Tom Payne's intro to Common Sense has an explanation for the OP: "Time makes more converts than Reason." When you can't make a rational case for something, you just get it through the courts, and then people go along with it.

[Perd Hapley]

So then would you support the libertarian answer of getting government out of marriage entirely? Because sure, I can get behind that. Id much prefer it actually.

But I've also come to the view that as long as government is going to rubber stamp relationships and grant certain advantages it shouldn't merely do so for the types it approves of and leave everyone else hanging in the breeze with no access to the same.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

On the first part, the notion of deregulating marriage is not unreasonable, and should be given its day in court. While I can see the appeal of deregulation, it would seem that government still has a place in at least recognizing marriages just for the sake of legally establishing family relationships, for purposes of inheritances, the custody of children, etc. Plus, look at Firethorn's list of all the things legal marriage takes care of - thousands of dollars in legal fees taken care of with a simple, inexpensive marriage license. Why mess with that?

Which brings us to your second point. When government recognizes certain things, or licenses certain things, it necessarily leaves "everyone else hanging in the breeze." Those who haven't passed the bar exam don't get a law license, for example. When it comes to marriage, it is (or certainly should be) obvious that people with no intention of playing house with a member of the opposite sex have put themselves "in the breeze." Marriage is, to restate the obvious for the thousandth time, for those who pair up with the opposite sex. If two people of the same sex want those thousands of dollars worth of legal details, then let them pay their thousands of dollars. Society at large has no legitimate interest in treating them like a married couple.

[Hawkmoon]

Tom Payne's intro to Common Sense has an explanation for the OP: "Time makes more converts than Reason." When you can't make a rational case for something, you just get it through the courts, and then people go along with it.

Somehow that's not exactly what I think Mr. Payne had in mind.

[lupinus]

On the first part, the notion of deregulating marriage is not unreasonable, and should be given its day in court. While I can see the appeal of deregulation, it would seem that government still has a place in at least recognizing marriages just for the sake of legally establishing family relationships, for purposes of inheritances, the custody of children, etc. Plus, look at Firethorn's list of all the things legal marriage takes care of - thousands of dollars in legal fees taken care of with a simple, inexpensive marriage license. Why mess with that?

Which brings us to your second point. When government recognizes certain things, or licenses certain things, it necessarily leaves "everyone else hanging in the breeze." Those who haven't passed the bar exam don't get a law license, for example. When it comes to marriage, it is (or certainly should be) obvious that people with no intention of playing house with a member of the opposite sex have put themselves "in the breeze." Marriage is, to restate the obvious for the thousandth time, for those who pair up with the opposite sex. If two people of the same sex want those thousands of dollars worth of legal details, then let them pay their thousands of dollars. Society at large has no legitimate interest in treating them like a married couple.

And I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation of why the government shouldn't be recognizing consenting adults who wish to be married.



Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Perd Hapley]

And I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation of why the government shouldn't be recognizing consenting adults who wish to be married.

Anyone who wishes to be married gets together with someone of the opposite sex. Was the government not marrying opp.-sex couples?

[lupinus]

Anyone who wishes to be married gets together with someone of the opposite sex. Was the government not marrying opp.-sex couples?

Yes, they were. The issue at hand is for what legitimate reason we're they denying the same to others who are perfectly capable of consenting and are married for all intents and purposes OTHER than the government saying nope.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Perd Hapley]

Which opposite-sex couples was the government refusing to marry? Are we going back to the racial thing again?

[White Horseradish]

Gay people have had the right to enjoy all the legal benefits of the "governmental version of 'marriage' " in most, if not all, states for a long time. It's called "civil union." Civil unions convey ALL the legal benefits of marriage.

That is not at all true. Civil unions are only available in Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Colorado. Vermont used to recognize them.  None were ever recognized nationally.

Which means that the example I specifically mentioned, not being compelled to testify against a spouse, would not apply in federal trials, or in any of the other states.

My main change on the issue is simply that, as long as the government is going to legally recognize/license marriages they should be doing so for all consenting adults that wish to be married regardless of other factors.

That's it in a nutshell.

The argument is that civil society  incentivizes a man and a woman getting married and (hopefully) raising children because continued additions to society from stable homes results in benefits to the society.

If children were the goal of the marriage, we would have fertility tests and would deny marriage to people who are sterile and beyond child-bearing age.  What is the difference to the state between them and the gays?

Society at large has no legitimate interest in treating them like a married couple.

What legitimate reasons does it have to treat anyone that way? You mentioned  legally establishing family relationships, for purposes of inheritances, the custody of children - these are all things that gays have the exact same need for as a heterosexual couple with no reproductive ability. Is there something else?