How Did this Happen? Why Same-Sex Marriage Makes Sense to So Many

[Deborah]

Would you suggest that one is higher than the other?

Of course. Secular morality is based on man's choices and desires, not God's.

[mercyngrace]

Jaybear:

I don't know as obfuscating the meaning of words doesn't have consequences. I think George Orwell had something to say on that subject in his book 1984, or has his book been consigned to the memory hole?

Actually, I think we're now calling the book 2011 and it's author is Ron Paul. The oldspeak title and author names were ungood.

[thesometimesaint]

semlogo:

With all the duties and responsibilities associated with marriage doesn't sound very libertine to me. If JS would have proposed a 1960's style of free love. He would have been hailed as a reformer and general nice guy.

[Daniel2]

And that is the difference between humanistic secular morality and religious morality.

There are many religious institutions that affirm and promote same-sex marriage as the moral thing to do. It's erroneous to suggest that moralists that are against same-sex marriage are religious, and moralists who support same-sex marriage are secular humanists.

Yes, others' religious morality disagrees with your religious morality.

Then why aren't they content in states that already allow civil unions to leave it alone?

Because, as I said, "I would submit that the civil marriage movement is about equality for couples and families than it is legitimizing sexual behaviors." Specifically, the "equality" I'm speaking about is "equal representation under the law" (not "sameness" as some have twisted the agreement to suggest).

Government-recognition of dual-gender couples as "civilly married" while simultaneously denying same-sex couples that same title, giving them an alternate (and clearly "second class" designation) of "civilly united" is not EQUAL in the eyes of the law.

If, however, all couples had to receive "civil unions," and "marriage" was relegated to each religion to determine for itself--that would be equal (but that isn't the case, in the states you refer to, that already "allow civil unions.") That's why people "don't leave it alone."

Darin

[ERayR]

Would you suggest that one is higher than the other?

H.

Yes.

[thesometimesaint]

Darin:

In California you are equally represented under the law. SS partners have exactly the same rights, duties, benefits, and responsibilities, as DS partners.

[Mordecai]

...Specifically, the "equality" I'm speaking about is "equal representation under the law" (not "sameness" as some have twisted the agreement to suggest)...

Funny how that one word keeps dropping out of the Constitution. The word is protection. It's not treatment nor is it representation. Equal protection implies that if you behave differently, you may no longer fit in the gov't-policy tent. Since gay people's behavior with regard to forming unions is significantly different, it's not discrimination that they are not legally included in the institution of marriage.

The policy of treating homosexual behavior the same as that of heterosexuals and labeling it identically, in fact, does imply that gay unions are the same in all relevant ways. Of course, we all know that is a false implication, even those of us advocating for the "gay marriage" gov't-adopted dogma. Insanity. Advocating for a gov't policy known to be based on a lie, expecting everyone to yield to such madness. Extremism.

[Daniel2]

Darin:

In California you are equally represented under the law. SS partners have exactly the same rights, duties, benefits, and responsibilities, as DS partners.

Hey, sometimesaint,

I can appreciate that many active Lattery-day Saints and I will disagree over the idea that the title of 'civil union' (instead of 'civil marriage') isn't "equal representation" nor "equal protection" (with a nod to Mordecai).

Even acknowleding that disagreement, however, I would think many wouldn't attempt to suggest that either civilly-united same-sex couples--or even those 13,000 Californian legally civilly-married same-sex couples--recieve equal protection at the Federal level, due to DOMA (there are over 1,000 Federal benefits given to legally married dual-gender couples that are denied to both civilly-united and/or legally-married same-sex couples).

Darin

[Daniel2]

Funny how that one word keeps dropping out of the Constitution. The word is protection. It's not treatment nor is it representation. Equal protection implies that if you behave differently, you may no longer fit in the gov't-policy tent. Since gay people's behavior with regard to forming unions is significantly different, it's not discrimination that they are not legally included in the institution of marriage.

I understand, Mordecai, that you strongly feel that, so far as this subject is concerned, there's a profound difference between the terms "equal treatment" vs. "equal protection."

As related to this issue, I don't hold your same view that the difference between those terms is significant.

I also don't believe it's accurate or correct that "gay people's behavior with regard to forming unions is significantly different." Of course, I realize you and I are unlikely to reach an agreement on that point.

The policy of treating homosexual behavior the same as that of heterosexuals and labeling it identically, in fact, does imply that gay unions are the same in all relevant ways. Of course, we all know that is a false implication, even those of us advocating for the "gay marriage" gov't-adopted dogma. Insanity. Advocating for a gov't policy known to be based on a lie, expecting everyone to yield to such madness. Extremism.

I'm not concerned about treating homosexual behavior the same as the behavior of heterosexuals. I do believe that our government should treat homosexual marriages the same as heterosexual marriages.

As I've said before, I believe it's false to assume that same-sex and opposite-sex marriages are significantly different enough to warrent a different government-authorized, civil label, while simultaneously attempting to enforce the same civil responsabilities and civil benefits.

From my perspective, endorsing equality for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples with regards to the right of civil marriage (a civil right for opposite-sex copules that's been specifically identified by SCOTUS) isn't "madness" nor "extremism." Once again, I understand you and I clearly see the issue differently.

Darin

[Jason]

Even acknowleding that disagreement, however, I would think many wouldn't attempt to suggest that either civilly-united same-sex couples--or even those 13,000 Californian legally civilly-married same-sex couples--recieve equal protection at the Federal level, due to DOMA (there are over 1,000 Federal benefits given to legally married dual-gender couples that are denied to both civilly-united and/or legally-married same-sex couples).

So why all the distress over Proposition 8, if the real issue is DOMA and the Federal definition of marriage?

[Mordecai]

I understand, Mordecai, that you strongly feel that, so far as this subject is concerned, there's a profound difference between the terms "equal treatment" vs. "equal protection."

I don't just feel it. I know it and so do you, which is why you keep replacing the word protection with words that fit into your agenda.

I'm not concerned about treating homosexual behavior the same as the behavior of heterosexuals. I do believe that our government should treat homosexual marriages the same as heterosexual marriages.

You don't see the contradiction here?

[Blossom]

Of course i am new with weird ideas. My own opinion to gay marriage is this:

Fine. Let them put up with what the rest of us do. they'll give up in time.

They want rights?

Explain to me where in the Constitution expressly indicates gay people having rights.

What rights? Marriage? Now that is nuts. Sorry, but that is how I feel. No way!

Blossom

(I'm sorry I offended)

[Vance]

They have to do this, because no society of the past ever equated homosexual relationships with marriage.

This statement makes me wonder, has ANY society long survived after fully accepting homosexual behavior?

[Vance]

They are flimsy because you can't articulate a rational connection between gay marriage, and speculative future ills.

Perhaps if history hadn't been so unkind to those societies that openly accepted homosexual behavior we would have more data.

[Daniel2]

So why all the distress over Proposition 8, if the real issue is DOMA and the Federal definition of marriage?

Jason,

I'm a bit dumbfounded at this question. Even if you disagree with same-sex marriage, I would think it is obvious why same-sex marriage supporters would be distressed over Prop 8, which outlawed civil marriage for same-sex couples, and which subsequently also stands in the way of same-sex couples from receiving Federal benefits only offered to those who are married (as likewise barred by DOMA). Your question implies that same-sex marriage supporters should be distressed by one or the other, when in reality, we're "distressed" by both, for similar reasons.

Darin

[Daniel2]

I don't just feel it. I know it and so do you, which is why you keep replacing the word protection with words that fit into your agenda.

Please dont' presume to tell me what "I know." I understand you may feel just as strongly about your convictions as I do about mine.

I'm openly and bluntly saying you can feel free to go back into my posts and re-write "equal protection" over where I said "equal treatment," and I don't think the substance of my posts is changed in any way.

You don't see the contradiction here?

No, I really don't see a contradiction, given that my usage was meant to emphasize "marriage" as a relationship status, not as a "heterosexual vs. homosexual behavior."

"Marriage" is the act of joining two lives to form a family. That may, or MAY NOT, indicate any sexual behaviors. Given that I don't believe "sex" is a necessary part of a marriage, and given that I believe both same-sex and opposite-sex couples can and do marry (EVEN in cases where the betrothed may or may not be inherently straight or gay), I don't believe any and every marriage is an example of "heterosexual" behavior, as opposed to "homosexual" behavior.

Darin

[frankenstein]

Of course i am new with weird ideas. My own opinion to gay marriage is this:

Fine. Let them put up with what the rest of us do. they'll give up in time.

Interesting take.

They want rights?

Explain to me where in the Constitution expressly indicates gay people having rights.

the Constitution applies to US Citizens, and there are homosexual US Citizens, thus homosexuals expressly have rights under the US Constitution.

[Jaybear]

Perhaps if history hadn't been so unkind to those societies that openly accepted homosexual behavior we would have more data.

All empires fall to history.

[Daniel2]

Hey, Jaybear,

Great point. In fact, not only do "all empires fall to history"--but it also follows that "even every empire that's rejected same-sex marriage has ALSO fallen to history." ;-) It all depends on the spin....

Darin

[Zeta-Flux]

All empires fall to history.

I'm going to disagree with Darin, and say that this does not address the point.

Of course all empires fall. The questions are: historically, what are the usual reasons for a country to fall? Are there examples where moral degradation significantly contributed to the fall?

[Daniel2]

I'm going to disagree with Darin, and say that this does not address the point.

Of course all empires fall. The questions are: historically, what are the usual reasons for a country to fall? Are there examples where moral degradation significantly contributed to the fall?

I don't see Jaybear's point as being contrary to your suggestion that it can be important to answer the question of why all empires do fail?

I'd wager he'd agree that there are examples where "moral degradation" significantly contributed to the fall (examples of these types of 'moral degradation' that may contribute to the falls of an empire might be greed, hubris, slavery, desire to conquer, control, rape, pillage less-powerful/protected socieities, etc., ultimately culminating in an unmanageably large territory that was unwieldy and impossible to maintain, especially given the lack of communciation and the hostility and fear of those peoples who'd been conquered).

The disagreement would likely start at the point where responsability for the fall of any past socieities would be attempted to be blamed on any past civil support for same-sex marriage (indeed, such support has been far from the norm in any such cultures, if even existent at all).

Darin

[thesometimesaint]

Darin:

It's a bit of a sticky wicket. The same general morality exists at the beginnings of a empire/country as at the end. But that doesn't mean that morality didn't play a role in the end.

[Jaybear]

I'm going to disagree with Darin, and say that this does not address the point.

Of course all empires fall. The questions are: historically, what are the usual reasons for a country to fall? Are there examples where moral degradation significantly contributed to the fall?

Sorry, but I don't see the connection between gay marriage and moral degradation of society.

By what objective standard should we measure moral degradation in society ... marriage rates, divorce rates, incarceration rates, abortions, rates of STDs, out of wedlock births? Once you identify the measure, explain specifically and rationally how gay marriage will lead to a greater moral degradation.

You can't just throw out words like "moral degradation" and assume that you have meaningfully contributed to the discussion.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Nice ploy. Just redefine morality as excluding the sexual kind.

[Vance]

All empires fall to history.

In such a way as to leave no history?