[Previous entry: "Support the arts..."] [Next entry: "Geocaching - the ultimate nerd pastime"]
02/25/2004: "The Gay Marriage "debate""
I'm not sure how much publicity this is getting overseas, but there is a heated debating going on in the US at the moment over the legality of same-sex marriage. Basically, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has started an uproar by declaring same-sex marriage to be legal, and allowing hundreds of gay and lesbian couples to marry.
The California Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, has also caught a lot of flack, from his "passive" support of the Mayor. While he is firm that this issue should be resolved in the Supreme Court, as it contravenes current California State law, he is also very clear that he fully supports the spirit of the Mayor's actions. The President has, rather predictably, come out strongly against same sex marriage, going so far as to try and push through a constitutional amendment banning it.
(click below to read more...)
Watching the "News" last night (and I use the term loosely), there was some footage of a press release by one of the people who is bringing a lawsuit against the City of San Francisco to try and stop same sex marriage. The guy said something about "Forbidden Marriage", and that was the last straw for me.
It just took me straight back to fifty years ago, when inter-racial marriage was considered "forbidden". How can anybody claim to believe in freedom in all its forms, as the US claims to, and yet maintain that such clear discrimination as banning same-sex marriage is justified? THE SF Mayor said the following, which I think sums it up perfectly:
“America has struggled since its inception to eradicate discrimination in all forms. California’s Constitution leaves no doubts; it leaves no room for any form of discrimination.
Today a barrier to true justice has been removed. A barrier removed for one person is a barrier removed for us all.”
Now I entitled this article "The Gay Marriage debate", as that is how the news services are phrasing it. However, I have yet to hear a single argument supporting a ban on same sex marriage. Apparently "The Majority" of Americans are against it, but that holds absolutely zero sway with me. The whole point of a society supposedly free from discrimination is to protect minorities from such unfounded oppinions. Plus, I find the idea of making such sweeping statements based on a Gallop poll of 500 people to be ludicrous...
This so called "debate" scares me even more than the debates over the Iraqi war. At least at that time, there were many arguments put forward supporting the war; irrespective of the validity of those arguments. But in this case, I have not heard any arguments at all against same-sex marriage. The only reason I can see to ban it, is pure and simple fear. Fear of change, and fear of the unknown. At least the fear of Saddam Hussein had some sort of concrete foundation, the fear in this case has absolutely none.
As usual, I always want to hear both points of view. Now I have a sneaking suspicion that most people reading this will agree heartily with the SF Mayor, but I would dearly love to hear any possible argument that supports a ban on same-sex marriage. Hell, I usually love to play devil's advocate, but even I can't find anything to go on here!
I am also interested in the position in other countries. Of course, this is something that has not even been mentioned in any of the press I have read on this issue. So, sound off - what is the official position in your country? I am assuming that it is legal in most Western Countries, but perhaps that is a rash assumption...
Replies: 14 Comments
On Wednesday, February 25th, at 17:18 PST, Kim said:
Yeah, the only "argument" I've heard is that The Bible forbids gay marriage. Which is the stupidest argument I've ever heard. There is SUPPOSED to be a separation of church and state in this country, a fact that "most of the country" seems to have forgotten. I also have to wonder (or hope?) that the poll asked them if they supported gay marriage in general (in which case they could very well cite their religious beliefs with some validity) or if they asked if they support legally recognizing gay marriage. Sometimes the news outlets aren't very clear about the statistics they report. In any case, I find it all ridiculous.
On Wednesday, February 25th, at 18:05 PST, Chris Tann said:
Quite right - I had in mind to mention the "religious" objections, but forgot. Thanks for bringing it up! Of course, I think the church should be "allowed" to make whatever restrictions they like on their religious ceremonies (and it is then up to the people in that church to lobby for change), but as you say, that should have _no_ impact on civil ceremonies. Should Muslims and Jews be banned from civil marriage, just because the church doesn't recognise their religious wedding ceremonies? I think not....
On Friday, April 23rd, at 09:05 PST, Taha Kahn said:
i hate gays and think they should all and will burn in the hell god has created for faggots like them!!!! %&$^ all those homosexual bastards.
On Friday, April 23rd, at 09:16 PST, Chris Tann said:
Ah, I love diverse viewpoints, especially ones as enlightened as this. Kind of renews my (lack of) faith in mankind... Well, Mr. Kahn, assuming that your "God" created a Hell for gays, I am _certain_ that there is one right next door for people filled with hate such as you are...
On Wednesday, May 19th, at 15:55 PST, Abbadon said:
Here is my argument: If there were a clear distinction between church and state then the "state" would be out of the marriage business altogether. Marriage is at its very roots religious and religion finds homosexuality unacceptable. My problem with gay marriage is it seems to be yet another attack on the ethical foundations of this country. Society has become so wretched, apathetic and self-absorbed over the last couple of decades that I believe people are now clinging to what they believe are the remaining social anchors (traditional family) that will keep us (society as a whole) from falling into complete and total depravity. Each newly addressed "injustice", once remediated, makes life much worse.. not better
On Wednesday, May 19th, at 16:10 PST, Chris Tann said:
"My problem with gay marriage is it seems to be yet another attack on the ethical foundations of this country."
The problem is, this same argument can be used to justify any descrimination. People could have used it to stop women getting the vote, to continue slavery... and so on.
"Each newly addressed "injustice", once remediated, makes life much worse.. not better"
Do you have an example of this? As well, you have to weight the *relative* merits - the abolition of slavery was a decided inconvenience for those that relied on slaves for their livelyhood - but obviously the benefit to the slaves themeselves was immesurably more important.
The same in this case - the (perceived or otherwise) detriment to most peoples lives of allowing Gay marriage is virually nill. However, the benefit to those who can now get married is great. So why not let 'em???
On Thursday, May 20th, at 06:24 PST, Abbadon said:
Who could argue that the end of slavery and allowing woment to vote was the "right" thing to do. The problem is that neither of these were earned but were rather simply allowed. Noone came over the hill with a tank and took their rights. They were allowed through fanciful rhetoric and appealing to the sensitivities of the forces that were at the time to gain equivalence. Why is that important? Because giving away resources and power without the temperence of experience breeds deviance. Add to this that the very forces that you are appealing to become demonized once a group has their way.
Over the last half century, I think everyone can agree, that the overall morality of society has dramatically declined, and crime has become socially normalized if not popularized. It is a depressing time and American society resonates this depression in various forms of deviant response.
Bejamin Franklin said that freedom is not a birthright (as it is percieved today) and that a free society must be moral and prudent. Once morality or prudence are gone then society would need its "masters" again.
On Thursday, May 20th, at 06:57 PST, Abbadon said:
I agree with Franklin. Without a set of moral guidelines which all of society lives by then the government must always step in to determine what is right or wrong. Each new law makes society more oppressed.
Marriage is in and of itself religious. Both nature and religion have demonstrated that a man and a woman belong together. There are certain physical and emotional properties distinct to each. Homosexuallity is deviant. That is why it is appealling to some people.
I have learned to tolerate it, but accepting it as socially normal I cannot do. Because it is not, never has been, nor never will be, regardless of what laws are passed. The whole politicalization of a sexual orientation is a bit too much to stomach as well.
These voiciferous groups lobbying for the rights of gays also openly attack the fundamental moral foundations of this country. Primarily family. There is a similar attack on our children and changing social perception in the developmental years of the youngest members of society. It was not enough that a legal agreement between homosexual couples equivalent to a marriage license could be implemented as was suggested by many. Rather, it had to be an attack on "marriage" itself. It is social perception above legal convienence that is being sought by these groups.
Similar was the attack on the Boy Scouts. People send their kids to the boy/girl scouts so that they can learn traditional social values (which in my obviously jaded point of view is a good thing) yet, homosexual lobbyists raised a stink when the Boy Scouts declined to allow gay leaders in the group. Does that not make sense? I would not want a homosexual leader with my son in the woods for 2 weeks anymore than I would want my daughter in the woods for 2 weeks with a heterosexual. Besides there is suppossed to be a distinction between the sexes and fostering healthy ethical foundations in the most impressionable can only be had by someone of the same gender and who has good ethical properties unto themself.
It all needs to go away before another civil war is triggered in this country. Militias are growning faster than ever and funding to these groups has become large. The mainstream of society is tired of being walked on. Nothing good will come of "Gay" marriage (oxy-moron)
On Thursday, May 20th, at 10:22 PST, Chris Tann said:
"Who could argue that the end of slavery and allowing woment to vote was the "right" thing to do."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you could.
"Because giving away resources and power without the temperence of experience breeds deviance. Add to this that the very forces that you are appealing to become demonized once a group has their way. "
"deviant", "demonized"... I don't quite follow your point here. Just so we're clear, are you a racist? Do you have something against coloured people. Please, be honest...
"Over the last half century, I think everyone can agree, that the overall morality of society has dramatically declined, and crime has become socially normalized if not popularized."
LEts be clear that we are talking about American society here. America is growing up. Just like people, it is easy to be keen and idealistic when you are young. But you have to grow up. The trick is, to do it in the right way, and not grow into a scared, hating old person that detests change and anyone "different". There are a lot of parallels between societies and people...
"I agree with Franklin. Without a set of moral guidelines which all of society lives by then the government must always step in to determine what is right or wrong. Each new law makes society more oppressed. "
Well, so do I!!! Hey, we agree on something! But the whole point of the Gay Marriage issue is _not_ to make a new law, it is to repeal an exisiting, unfair law. If each new law makes a society more opressed, then each repealed more must make it more free, no?
"Both nature and religion have demonstrated that a man and a woman belong together."
This is true, if you look at only the small set of nature and religion that back up your case. Many religions allow polygamy - yet it is a federal crime in this country. Is that just?
And nature - are we going to base our society on how animals herd together? Because there are a _lot_ of different ways that animals herd, and if you are going to pick one to follow, which one? I like Gorillas personally, one Alpha male, and a bunch of females to do the child rearin'....
"I would not want a homosexual leader with my son in the woods for 2 weeks anymore than I would want my daughter in the woods for 2 weeks with a heterosexual. "
Interesting. How about your daughter spending two weeks in the woods with a homosexual female? It really seems to me that you are longing for a return to old (oppresed) values - the woman in the kitchen, staying at home raising a family, dad going off to work.. am I right?
Talking about education, interestingly enough the local school here that has the reputation for the ost "homosexual" liberation is a uni-sex school. Perhaps if you want your children to grow up "straight", you should send them to an "opposite" sex school...
"It all needs to go away before another civil war is triggered in this country."
Now you are starting to threaten??? This is the "Home of the free", remember???
By the way, thanks for your comments. I really love hearing opposing points of view, and please don't be offended if I challenge and debate those points of view - I do the same thing with my own points of view. Its the path to enlightenment....
On Thursday, May 20th, at 12:52 PST, Chris Tann said:
I started a new blog article to continue this discussion...
On Tuesday, June 1st, at 11:28 PST, HM said:
Hey ok heres how i see it, if there is a chance for gays to get married then they will want to be married in churches and if they are turned down by the church then they will press charges. Right? well some ministers see it as commiting a sin in the house of god. So they would have no option they would have to let them be married in the church of their choice. and also ask your self what if everyone else in the world did this?? if all the couples in the world were gay then what would happen to our population???? there wouldnt be one.
On Tuesday, June 1st, at 11:59 PST, Chris Tann said:
> So they would have no option they would have to let them be married in the church of their choice.
But (supposedly), church and state are seperate in California. So it is not the job of the State to enact laws that will protect the church from prosecution. I go back to the racist thing - how would you view a religion that refused to perform a mixed-race marriage? There were plenty of those thirty years ago... but I think you'll agree that making a law to protect that discrimination would be a bad thing...
> and also ask your self what if everyone else in the world did this??
> if all the couples in the world were gay then what would happen to our population???? there wouldnt be one.
Nice one! But really, if it came to a point where everyone in the world decided they were homosexual, then I think we would have a rather bigger problem than could be solved by saying who can and can not be married. Plus, in these modern times, there are plenty of options for reproduction that do not involve sex....
On Friday, April 21st, at 03:03 PST, Villi said:
makeup mirror
Orange County Plumber
tektronix phaser 850
On Saturday, May 27th, at 13:30 PST, Villl said:
Every week my wife go to Paris hilton makeup mirror tektronix phaser 850 every weeks...
