fromtheright

I don't think the amendment goes far enough. It was intended to keep courts from creating marriage rights/privileges through homosexual civil unions, but it would not prevent state legislatures from doing so.

pug846

Just out of curiosity: why? If two people love each other, and they both happen to be of the same sex, why do you care if we provide them the same benefits as different sex couples? More to the point because I understand why you would think the Constitution doesn’t guarantee homosexuals the right to vote, why would you want to deny the people of any state the right to decide for themselves if they want to grant homosexuals marriages?

fromtheright

pug,

Good question. BTW, I don't think that homosexuals should be deprived of the right to vote.

I think that marriage between a man and a woman are the cornerstone of civilized society, or at least civilized society in the West. I believe homosexuality to be vile both naturally and morally and that extending any benefit of such a vital institution is not just to crumble at its foundations but to bring it down. We probably disagree on the premises so I doubt either of us will convince the other. It is interesting to me that such solid liberals as Paul Wellstone voted for DOMA and Walter Fauntroy support the FMA and thus apparently opposes homosexual marriage. Also, if a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage were to be ratified, it would not be a small minority imposing its will but would rather be the will of at least 3/4 of the states. I am quite skeptical such a comprehensive ban will pass, which to me is a sad commentary on the state of public morality and the increasing acceptance of homosexuality.

pug846

fromtheright said:

While I (vehemently) disagree with your premises, we aren’t going to get anywhere debating them here. (At least we both agree there!)

I’ll assume that homosexuality is vile, both naturally and morally; however, I don’t think your conclusion follows.

I’m not clear on why allowing homosexuals to marry will have any effect at all on heterosexual marriage. So, while marriage between a man and a woman might be the “cornerstone of a civilized society,” I’m not sure how allowing homosexuals to marry each other will harm that “cornerstone.” Other country’s allow homosexuals to marry, and yet, they are doing fine. Why? Shouldn’t they be “crumbling”?

Additionally, a constitutional amendment would simply be the lazy way out for most social conservatives. Why not using reason and logic to convince people that homosexuality is wrong (or at the very least, homosexuals should not marry)? Instead, conservatives want to use the government’s guns to force people to adhere to their sexual moral code. What’s the point in that? Are people being more moral if they are not doing something they would otherwise do if not for the government’s guns?

In the end though, if such an amendment were to pass, it would simply end up in the trash heap with the prohibition on alcohol.

fromtheright

It is because I believe there is a value to society in maintaining the the integrity of the bond between a man and a woman. There is a value to society in having its children taught morality by a mother and a father. If one's premise is that a strong system of moral standards is not important and, further, that there is no point (or even that it is dangerous) in teaching such standards to children, then one would not understand and would disagree with that value. By watering down the institution, the cornerstone becomes a sludgestone.

This may be an imperfect analogy, but if having a driver's license depends on one demonstrating a level of knowledge and skill at driving and then those requirements are eliminated, it would be rather dangerous on the street. If the prerequisites of marriage are destroyed, then so is marriage. I'm sure you logicians will probably find a number of fallacies with this, but I think the problem on your (and I'm not directing this at you in particular, pug) end in understanding my position on this is that you do not accept the value to children and their development in having a mother and father. And, oh, please spare me the "there are awful mothers and fathers"--I am comparing an ideal mother and father with an "ideal" two mommies or two daddies.


Why not using reason and logic to convince people that homosexuality is wrong (or at the very least, homosexuals should not marry)? Instead, conservatives want to use the government’s guns to force people to adhere to their sexual moral code. What’s the point in that?

Government has already stepped into this debate so that it is no longer academic. It is a matter of barricading society's standards against further assault. If it were just a legislative issue, I could more readily agree but the courts have begun an assault on the institution of marriage counter to society's existing standards; legislative acts would simply reinforce that assault. Passing the current FMA as a barrier to the courts and then having to fight that battle piecemeal throughout the states and possibly having to push for another amendment to limit legislative acts when one amendment could limit both seems redundant.



Are people being more moral if they are not doing something they would otherwise do if not for the government’s guns?

If there is no governmental or societal recognition of such civil unions and none of marriage's legal or social benefits/rights/privileges accrue to any but marriages between a man and a woman, then why would they otherwise get married? I don't see any government triggers getting pulled in such situation. Come to think of it, I don't think any of government's guns were being used before homosexuals starting pushing to legalize their "relationships". Or since.


Other country’s allow homosexuals to marry, and yet, they are doing fine. Why? Shouldn’t they be “crumbling”?

First of all, what countries? And when did they make it legal?

Secondly, I would respond that their societies have begun crumbling by giving its sanctions to such unions. After taking a look at any countries you might identify I'll respond further on whether they are crumbling.

openeyes

I don't see how extending legal union privileges (such as marriage) to homosexuals is going to affect heterosexual marriage. But then I don't see homosexual behavior as necessarily vile and unnatural, although it provides no attraction to me. I think we need relatively stable lives if children are involved. Instablility can be caused by many things which I won't get into, but allowing legal gay unions doesn't figure in as much of a cause in my eyes; if anything it may lend stability.

I think we would have fewer problems as a society if there wasn't such a revulsion of many people toward a certain segment of the population who find themselves homosexual. I had jokingly remarked to a couple people after Frist's statement that I couldn't imagine what some people were worried about. Did they think that all of the sudden heterosexual marriages would break up because one of the couple realized that now they could marry someone of their own sex? Unfortunately, that seems to be the fear of columnist Jeff Jacoby:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, here's a shred of evidence: The Boston Globe reports that in the three years since Vermont extended near-marriage status to same-sex civil unions, nearly 5,700 gay and lesbian couples have registered their relationship. Of those couples, close to 40 percent, or more than 2,000, include at least one partner who used to be married.

"Just a shred - but a jarring one. Of course, it doesn't mean that Vermont's civil union law broke up 2,000 straight couples. It does mean that where there used to be 2,000 traditional marriages, there are now 2,000 ruptured ones - and 2,000 gay or lesbian unions in their place. Were some of those marriages doomed from the outset? Probably. But it's also probable that some of them weren't. In another time or another state, some of those marriages might have worked out. The old stigmas, the universal standards that were so important to family stability, might have given them a fighting chance. Without them, they were left exposed and vulnerable."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps if the participants in these legal unions in Vermont who were previously married felt acceptance for being homosexual all along they wouldn't have married someone of the opposite sex in the first place.

Marriage may be having its problems, but not allowing a certain segment of the population the legal privileges it provides because they are not heterosexual will do nothing to strengthen it.

Vorkosigan

Wow! Now there's some bogus logic.

Vorkosigan

fando

If I were to hazard a guess, it's probably along the same line of thought that this nation is a Christian nation and it's so affirmed in the constitution or at least in the intentions of the founding fathers. In other words, a misbegotten misinterpretation of our nation's 'purpose' provides the so called justification for moral amendaments to the constitution.

Rhaedas

Well, here's a shred of evidence:

Shred implying small...approaching zero.

The Boston Globe reports that in the three years since Vermont extended near-marriage status to same-sex civil unions, nearly 5,700 gay and lesbian couples have registered their relationship.

Super. That's 5700 happier people not discriminated against.

Of those couples, close to 40 percent, or more than 2,000, include at least one partner who used to be married.

And not happy. Go on.

Just a shred - but a jarring one. Of course, it doesn't mean that Vermont's civil union law broke up 2,000 straight couples.

No, in fact it really means nothing. How many of those 2000 broke up way before the civil union law was passed? That would be a slightly more relevant number, although still not pointing to the law as a cause.

It does mean that where there used to be 2,000 traditional marriages, there are now 2,000 ruptured ones - and 2,000 gay or lesbian unions in their place.

So 2000 people had made a mistake, and now they are happier. Sounds like a good law then.

Were some of those marriages doomed from the outset? Probably.

Sounds like they were marriages made under the societial pressure of "gay is bad" mentality.

But it's also probable that some of them weren't.

And your reason for thinking this is probably because you think being gay is a choice...that those previously married people wanted to throw away their marriage and try the flip side, where they'll be looked down upon by most of society. Of course, there's no data to support this thrill seeking, just prejudice.

Straight marriage is not threatened by this, and will always be the much greater percentage of unions. Why can't those who disapprove of same sex unions just let them the people be happy?

If you don't like gay unions...don't marry the same sex.

Toto

Another time, another state - return with me now to those days of yesteryear, days of hypocricy, when divorce was illegal, when the wife was the property of her husband, when society recognized that the purpose of marriage was to unite with a person selected by your parents and to produce children, and your sexual preferences for either sex were just something you took care of in your free time. Is that what you call a marriage "working out?"