's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Bush says 'no' to gay marriages, change the constitution?(36 posts)

Bush says 'no' to gay marriages, change the constitution?rwbadley
Jul 31, 2003 6:33 AM
There is a movement to change the constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman only. Bush seems to agree with this.

Another slam on personal freedoms? Or just upholding the natural order?
uh, scroll down a little...DougSloan
Jul 31, 2003 6:39 AM
ColnagoFE "Bush...pandering to the religious right?" 7/30/03 9:46pm
Sorry, I overlooked the Bush pandering...rwbadley
Jul 31, 2003 7:12 AM
I guess I just take that for granted ;-)

So, Bush exclaims "I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own"

Overlooking grammatical errors, I find this statement astounding in the context uttered. So, he is proclaiming all gay/lesbian activity as sin. I thought he was President, not God.

Now, I am hetero myself, and don't feel a need to skip to the other side; but I would hesitate to declare some otherwise fine human beings sinners, just because their dangle angles the opposite direction.

It's always something with this guy. I keep hoping he'll just keep his mouth shut, it would make reading the morning paper a better experience...

Jul 31, 2003 7:22 AM
"It's very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America."—Dakar, Senegal, July 8, 2003
A ban?TypeOne
Jul 31, 2003 10:53 AM
Sure, the federal government could meddle with healthcare benefits, tax laws, etc. for same-sex partners and that is controversial enough. So the feds could fail to "recognize" gay marriages. But banning gay marriage? Does Bush want Congress to pass federal laws with various penalties? (A conviction for gay marriage in the 2nd degree will get you 5 to 10 years.) Yeah, this was a ridiculous statement made by a buffoon pandering to the religious right prior to election. A Constitutional amendment, especially for this crap, would never, never pass. Remember the flag-burning Constitutional Amendment? Wasn't that Bush Sr's idea?
re: Bush says 'no' to gay marriages, change the constitution?sn69
Jul 31, 2003 6:57 AM
One's formal definition of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the governance of this nation, thus, IMHO, it has no place rating a Const. amdmt.

As with so many other sad, disturbing efforts by the religious right, this is little more than another thinly disguised attempt to force their life views on the people of the United States. And that, friends, is blatantly contemtuous of the freedoms that the Constitution is suppose to guarantee.

The Pope, in all his institutional smugness, issued his decree attempting to link gay marriage and parenthood to willfull violence against children. What a hypocrytical lie. The church preached against violence against children when they insist that their own pedaphiles are somehow free from legal consequence.

The human mind continues to astound me with its capacity for selective reasoning. If two consenting, responsible adults are living in a committed, loving relationship, how can that be construed as being bad? Because The Religious Institutions of man claim to speak for God? That's horse sh!t.

Here's the natural order: you're born. You eat some. You poop some. You sleep some. You die. The rest is that which we make of it.

"...and I go, wait, what are you talking about, we decided? my best interest? How do you know what MY best interest is? How can you say what MY best interest is? What are you trying to say? That I'm crazy? When I went to your schools, I went to your churches, I went to your institutional learning facilities. So how can you say I'm crazy?"
all i wanted was a Pepsi, and SHE wouldn't give it to me!ColnagoFE
Jul 31, 2003 7:07 AM
great suicidal tendencies song quote there. i vaguely remember listening to that in the 80s.
Why just homosexuals?Captain Morgan
Jul 31, 2003 6:58 AM
Heck, why stop with just homosexuals trying to legitimize their relationships? So as to not offend the bisexuals, perhaps we should allow polygamy. After all, a person should have the right to commit to whomever they want to, even if it is more than one person. Why limit it to just one? Who are we to tell them no? Next, perhaps we should look after the animal lovers. I have met some people who love their pets more than they love other humans. Perhaps we should allow inter-species marriages as well. Let's really give people the free rights they deserve.
oh come on...ColnagoFE
Jul 31, 2003 7:04 AM
so you are equating bestiality with gays? and nobody is proposing making polygamy legal though personally i don't have a problem assuming they are all consenting adults. i see the pope has joined bush in renoucing gay marriage. can making birth control illegal in the US be far behind?
oh come on...Captain Morgan
Jul 31, 2003 7:12 AM
Of course the bestiality comment was made in jest.

At least your views on homo marriages and polygamy are consistent, because to me they are based on the same principle.

However, how in the heck do you equate the Pope's renunciation of gay marriages to the outlawing of birth control??
BC takes 'right to life' to the logical conclusion...rwbadley
Jul 31, 2003 7:23 AM
You know how to give a canary an abortion? Break the egg...

I also think polygamy is unfairly attacked. Some cultures it is (was) needed for survival. I say 'More power to them.'

It seems easy that some animals are more loved than some humans. Physical love? well... That reminds me of an old cartoon that I dare not mention here. hehehe

what is the guiding principle?DougSloan
Jul 31, 2003 7:17 AM
Rather than make ad hoc decisions about each circumstance, perhaps we should examine the principles that guide us in making these decisions. Then, maybe we can make consistent, less hypocritical choices.

Is the principle that everyone should be permitted to do as they please, including personal associations, without government restriction, as long as they are not injuring someone? Conversely, is the principle that marriage is and always has been between a consenting man and a woman, that that is the natural order, and so nothing else should be permitted?

I prefer the first principle. However, it would tend to suggest that polygamy would be permitted, too. Unless you can make a strong argument about undue legal complexities or harm to someone, it would be difficult to recognize same sex marriages and exclude polygamous ones without being morally inconsistent.

what's the history of polygamy? has it always been illegal?-nmColnagoFE
Jul 31, 2003 7:24 AM
depends on where and when; in most of U.S., yes. nmDougSloan
Jul 31, 2003 7:38 AM
inter-species marriages are becomming acceptableSpoiler
Jul 31, 2003 7:19 AM
In my own experience, acceptance begins at the community level before
it gains nation-wide status.
My own neighborhood welcomed me and my husband Doug, the gay emu. (Doug was a completely random name;}

After a traditional catholic wedding, we traveled around the south, intoxicated in the bliss of the newly wedded. But reality would shake us out of our love nest.

After 9/11, financial times hit us pretty hard. Last year we started making spare money babysitting for our pastor and running a day-care center out of our garage.

But Doug has his heart set on having a sex-change operation. He's at the age when a mature, gay, male emu gets the urge to start making a nest and laying eggs.

I share this dream with Doug, despite the fact that gay male emus eat their young. We'll deal with that when the time seems right.
congratulations and all the best to the happy couple nmDougSloan
Jul 31, 2003 7:22 AM
The gay emu? Sounds like the next TV reality series nmrwbadley
Jul 31, 2003 7:27 AM
No way - Catholic church doesn't allow same-sex emu marriages!Captain Morgan
Jul 31, 2003 7:52 AM
Bisexual does not mean poly-sexual.czardonic
Jul 31, 2003 10:47 AM
A bisexual person is perfectly capable of being in a monogamous relationship -- with a person of either sex. It does not suggest that a person must have partners of both sexes. In the same way, a heterosexual person can commit to one person of the opposite sex, even though there are roughly 3 billion others with whom they are technically compatible.

Bestiality does not involve two consenting adult humans.

I realize that you are mostly kidding, but there are a lot of people out there that buy the spurious logic underneath these arguments, and base their objection to homosexual marriage on unfounded "slippery-slope" fears.
poly-sexual? there are more than 2? nmDougSloan
Jul 31, 2003 10:50 AM
Might be coining a term here. . .czardonic
Jul 31, 2003 11:00 AM
. . .but I have heard "poly-amorous" used to describe people who can't commit to a single partner. Personally, I think that "amorous" takes a pretty euphamistic meaning in that context.

So, I am using "poly-sexual" to describe someone who seeks out multiple partners.
YesCaptain Morgan
Jul 31, 2003 11:53 AM
Of course a bisexual, homosexual, or transsexual could be in a monogomous relationship. My point was that just because adults consent to something does not mean it has to be legally, politically, or socially acceptable. You did not address my polygamy argument, which I believe is not spurious. Why would we not recognize the union of three (or more) consenting adults?
Polygamy is different to monogamy for reasons. . .czardonic
Jul 31, 2003 12:16 PM
. . .that have nothing to do with sexual preference. Therefore, I think it is a complete red-herring as far as the gay marriage thing goes. You do not have to expand the limits of what kinds of unions the government allows to recognize gay marriage. You simply have to apply the current recognition objectively, i.e. without making a qualitative judgement about sexual preference.
again, though, what's the principle?DougSloan
Jul 31, 2003 1:26 PM
Isn't your principle that people should be permitted to have consenting relationships with whom they choose? If so, I can't see the difference between same sex marriage and polygamy.

While I'm not a proponent of slippery slope scare tactics, I do prefer to examine the principles of our arguments and attempt to be consistent. If you are arguing it's purely an ad hoc decision, and there is no principled basis, in other words, "you just want it," then fine. Just admit it.

Equality under the law.czardonic
Jul 31, 2003 2:06 PM
The law recognizes a union between two adults with the caveat that one must be a man and one must be a woman. I don't see any reason not to do away with that caveat and have the law recognize the union between two adults, whether that is one man and one woman or two men or two women.

If the law is arbitrary or ad hoc, that is another issue. I am just proposing that we apply the law equally.
not sure that's principledDougSloan
Jul 31, 2003 3:00 PM
That sounds a bit more like sophistry than principle.

One could just as easily (for argument purposes) describe the law as recognizing unions between men and women, with the caveat that there must be one man and one woman. There is no reason not to do away with the caveat and have the law recognize the union between 2 or more consenting adults.

I guess the analysis depends on the persective of whether the number or the genders is the fundamental aspect of marriage. Historically, no doubt it is the latter.

Then what is the principle behind any marriage?czardonic
Jul 31, 2003 3:31 PM
I don't see how my definition is sophistry, or at least how it is any more so than the "traditional" definition of marriage (if not a great deal less).

It has already been demonstrated that two people of the same sex can combine to form a lifelong commitment that, qualitatively, is identical to heterosexual marriage. (That is not true of polygamy, which by definition can not be identical to marriage as it is currently defined, i.e. monogamous)

Given that, those who would deny gay's the right to marriage boil it down to the most technical physiological details. Should we really leave the definition of such a fundamental institution to people who look right past the emotional, economic and societal benefits of marriage and judge it solely by their mental image of what goes on in the master bedroom?
Are you talking about polygamous marriage or group marriage?jtolleson
Jul 31, 2003 4:08 PM
I don't know if it changes the analogy, but folks keep talking about polygamy as if it is just a marriage between multiple people.

It is. It is the ability of one person to have many spouses. Those spouses (say, wives) are NOT married to each other. They each have one husband. It is an entirely different socio-economic unit that "marriage" (whether hetero- or homosexual) and leaves many more unusual policy questions involved regarding dependency, duty of support, death benefits, even child-rearing I suppose. To recognize polygamous marriage, we would really have to redraft many of the statutes regarding creation of marriage, extension of benefits, rights, and responsibilities to married persons, and addressing the mechanism of divorce potential. Group marriage would be even MORE complex and would indeed be a new and different institution.

With same sex marriage, it is merely taking sex (and sexual orientation) out of the equation but otherwise having the exact same socio- legal construct we have now.

I don't think this answers your entire philosophical debate about what "marriage" is and how we define it, but I think there are many distinctions between same-sex marriage (which some would say only removes the gender discrimination from marriage law) and multiple-participant marriages (group or polygamous marriages).
Jul 31, 2003 4:21 PM
not that it is worth editing, but my first sentence second paragraph should say "It is NOT." I.e., polygamy is not simple a marriage of multiple participants. It is a model more utilitarian than egalitarian... one person has multiple partners for sexual purposes, labor, economic support, or whatever.
good pointsDougSloan
Jul 31, 2003 4:25 PM
I never even heard of "group marriage." I always thought of polygamist marriage as between one man and multiple women, but I suppose any numbered variation would be equally valid (or invalid).

The legalities would be difficult. It's bad enough the way things are now. I'd say everyone would be required to enter into a pre-nuptual contract defining their rights. What a mess.

However, that discussion is really about pragmatics, not fundamental principle.

I'd be interested to see a poll of people's views on same sex and polygamist marriages. Which do you think would be more approved, or would people see the rationale the same? I really don't know.

I'm simply looking for the common threadDougSloan
Jul 31, 2003 4:18 PM
If it were up to me, anyone could do whatever they want, whether it be polygamy, same sex, or any variation. It might create a big legal mess, but that's what lawyers and courts are for.

My point is simply that it appears to me that the justification for same sex marriage is that consenting adults should be permitted to unite as they please. That means equally that same sex or polygamist marriages would be permitted. I realize that same sex proponents might think that a slippery slope or poison pill, but that's how I see the rationale.

If you really want to examine the root of marriage, it appears to me that the purpose is to unite two people so that they can bear and raise children, and that can be said without any reference to religious doctrine. That is the "purpose," if there is any. Now, Lots of married people have no intention of raising children, and now in modern times, even same sex couples are capable of either bearing or adopting children. However, based upon what appears to me to be the "purpose" of marriage, it makes more sense to allow polygamist marriages than it does same sex. Now, I'm speaking in a logical, rational sense, not legalistic, moralistic, pragmatic, or what is consistent with my world view that everyone should be permitted to do as they please. Nonetheless, I think the argument as I have outlined is defensible. This is born out historically, too.

There seem to be two common threads.czardonic
Jul 31, 2003 4:58 PM
I don't think that the justification of same sex marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to do as they please. I think that same sex marriage should be allowed as long as opposite sex marriage is allowed because to do otherwise is gender-discrimination. As long as the government is divvying out rights, in this case the right to be married to one other person, it should discriminate.

Perhaps some polyamists can juggle several spouses and maintain a harmonious homel-ife but in general, humans do not seem to be programmed that way. It does not make more sense to allow polygamy purely on the basis that it will produce more offspring (which is incorrect anyway1). It is far less likely to provide a nuturing environment for those offspring, or a stable addition to the community in general.

1 Why would it be assumed that a polygamous family would produce more offspring than if each woman married a differenent man? Turn the tables and give one woman several husbands and you have an even lower potential for offspring.
I thought the Constitution was designed to protect us from govtjtolleson
Jul 31, 2003 8:23 AM
by imposing limits on the activities of the public sector (bill of rights) and providing for a three-prong system of government with checks and balances, while allowing for an amount of state and local autonomy (remaining articles).

Apparently, now we want to amend it whenever we need protection from social changes afoot in the lives of other Americans.

Imagine the possibilities! We can amend the Constitution as needed to create our "perfect" society!
all academic anywayDougSloan
Jul 31, 2003 8:25 AM
We all know this would never pass. It's almost a ludicrous discussion.

But I LOVE ludicrous discussions! NMjtolleson
Jul 31, 2003 9:14 AM
then we've certainly come to the right place nmDougSloan
Jul 31, 2003 10:32 AM