Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal tomhudson's Journal: More stuff on gay marriage, religion, etc... 292

Journal by tomhudson
Update: 2004-08-14: According to the accepted rules of internet debate, OnLawn lost his part of the debate against same-sex marriage earlier today. Details are in this journal entry, along with the necessary links.

===============================================

Okay, here it is.

We've been messing up someone elses' journal (again) with this same debate, and its gone off on a tangent.

So, rather than continuing to crap in someone else's journal, I told On Lawn to feel free to dump in mine.

My position is simple:

  1. The courts have a right and a duty to rule on whether barring gays and lesbians from marriage is discriminatory
  2. The courts that have ruled against discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation are correct
  3. Marriage is not something "sacred" or "holy" - it's only worth is what you bring to it in the first place
  4. That being said, there is no reason to get married, as you can bring the same benefits to a relationship without marriage
  5. Neither a persons marital state, nor their sexual orientation, has any bearing on whether they would be/are a good parent
  6. I have no problem with gay and lesbian couples fostering or adopting children
  7. I applaud the local child welfare agency's public request that gays and lesbians apply for some of the children in their care.
  8. Marriage historically has been used to keep people (mostly women) "in their place"
  9. Marriage historically has historically reduced a woman's rights
  10. Gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, if only so that they can "share the pain" when it comes to paying divorce lawyers.
  11. Hopefully, they will be more effective at lobbying for more easily dissolved marriages (pay the $50 fee, and have the mariage license cancelled, would be ideal)
  12. Relationships are based on trust. A piece of paper will never be able to increase that trust. All it can do is prolong the agony in the case of misplaced trust.

So, start dumping ...

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More stuff on gay marriage, religion, etc... More

More stuff on gay marriage, religion, etc...

Comments Filter:
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Thanks. Interestingly enough, we've (Canadians) already worked through the problems of insurance benefits, hospital visitation, etc...

      Common-law relationships have been respected in these areas for years. Of course, medical isn't a problem - ewe have universal health care coverage, and we're coming out with universal pharmacare as well (based on the Quebec model that already covers every Quebecer*)

      We also have civil unions here, but they mean something different - you can enter into a civil union with any

    • I'd rather that marriage wasn't a federal issue, or even an issue of government at all. Make "civil union" the official legal union, and the marriage would be a religious (or not) ceremony performed for the families - as it is today.

      Is there any need for the government "civil union" thing to exist in the first place, though? There's nothing to stop two random people owning property together or cohabiting, and there's nothing to stop an insurance policy in the name of one person also covering another. Wher

      • Sounds good to me.

        I would draw the line at trans-species stuff, though. Some guy wants to walk down the aisle with his goat, I DON'T want to know about it (IIRC I remember reading somewhere that someone had actually married a sheep, and I have a newspaper clipping of a girl in India who married a dog with the consent of the family, because her arranged mariage husband was dead, and for some obscure reason, they were able to nominate the family dog as a proxy :-)

        • [SARCASM]What- are you an anti-interspecies bigot? Oooh- get the torches out, we've got an interspeciesphobe here. He must be evil- must be locked up and reeducated to accept interspecies relationships.[/SARCASM]

          That's how I've felt every single day since I finally accepted the idea of civil unions just in time to have 4 Multnomah County Oregon commissioners meet in SECRET and ILLEGALLY to change the laws of Oregon for everybody else.

          It's still up in the air whether their rebellion against democracy wil
    • Even as a Catholic trying to protect Sacramental marraige- I think all of those rights should not only be bestowed upon married folk, but in fact on everybody who chooses to live at a single address. If you've got the same address as a person- the same dwelling space- then you SHOULD have those rights.
  • I'll take the points one by one... I've took the time to establish my points with reason and where applicable, factual support. If you wish more reason and factual support I will be happy to provide. But that would have made it longer ;)
    1. The courts have a right and a duty to rule on whether barring gays and lesbians from marriage is discriminatory

      A number of places to go with this. First that it discriminates is not the question. I quote Tom,

      I wrote: My support for the rights of gays and lesbians t

    • s/On Lawn/astroturf/g

      What it boils down to is that On Lawn refuses to understand the difference between individuals exercising their freedoms, and LEGALLY IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS on those same freedoms.

      Instead of responding to all the bullshit, I'll just point out the most glaring example:

      I wrote:

      I have no problem with gay and lesbian couples fostering or adopting children

      ... and here's the incredible BS that came back from On Lawn ...

      Fostering is a more accurate term of what gay and lesbian coupl

      • Suppose a gay couple (two guys) want to get married. In On Lawn's world, they can't. So, one of them gets a sex-change operation. Now they are man and "female."

        Oh, wait. They can't have kids. So, no marriage even though they are hetero now.

        Okay, try again: a man and a women want to get married. One of them realizes that he/she is gay, so gets a sex change. Now the couple is either male-"male" or female-"female." Sorry, can't get married, even though your original sex is "okay."

        Conclusion: only young, non-st

        • On Lawn has the right to his marriage. What he DOESN'T have, is to keep other people from having the same right.

          I find that the people who don't have problems with gays and lesbians don't have problems with them getting married; on the other hand, people who consider homosexuality wrong also consider gay marriage wrong.

          When I ask them to explain their position against gay marriage, it eventually degenerates into something along the lines of "homosexuality and lesbianism are wrong", or "it's against God"

          • on the other hand, people who consider homosexuality wrong also consider gay marriage wrong.

            Not so, a large majority of people who defend marriage are tolerant of homosexual lifestyle. In fact as was pointed out in this journal, the trend is more tolerance of homosexuality *and* more support for marriage. Here is one such poll that finds this [cbsnews.com]...

            Most Americans oppose gay marriage and many believe homosexuality is "against God's will," but otherwise consider themselves tolerant of gays, according to a Los

            • On Lawn has now entered another plane when it comes to playing with words ...

              This is very simular to my statement that

              homosexuals have the right to get married, but they don't have the right to call any relationship they want to a marriage.

              What On Lawn doesn't say is that he believes that gays can get married, but not to each other.

              Got news for you - it's already happening. And as gay and lesbian couples move from states that recognize their marriage to states that don't, we're going to see more state

              • ~ inter-species relationships, all are barred for just that reason.
                Please cite the relevent case where a non-human being is allowed to enter into a contractual relationship.
                • ROFL :-)

                  Mind you, On Lawn has it wrong in another part as well, in the same sentence: If the purpose of marriage is procreation, then only people who can demonstrate that they can reproduce would be allowed to get married.

                  And this is true (though I put it, call their relationship a marriage). Same-sex couples, Children, inter-species relationships, all are barred for just that reason. Last time I looked, lots of kids were quite capable of procreation. So, according to On Lawn, if you're old enough

                • Please cite the relevent case where a non-human being is allowed to enter into a contractual relationship.

                  The underlying argument here of course is that it could be sufficient that children and animals could be excluded from marriage by their inability to sign contracts. However, children under the age of 18 can get married and be held liable for their end of the contract. In fact, in the Netherlands, the worlds largest homosexual lobby is trying to lower the "age of concent" to thirteen and fourteen with
                  • You still didn't answer Safety Cap's question. Also, the age for sexual consent is 14 in Canada, as a reflection on reality.

                    Additionally, minors 14 and up can seek their own medical treatment, and the parent is not to be informed without the minors' prior consent. The only exception is if the minor is admitted to a hospital for more than 12 hours.

                    • You still didn't answer Safety Cap's question.

                      Yes, I did. Whether or not Safety Cap accepts it as an answer with sufficient merit to have responded to his argument (if he had one) is up to him.

                      Also a hospital visit for emergency care is not a legally binding contract.
                  • There is no court case to cite, because non-human beings cannot enter into contractual relationships with humans. You cannot marry your chicken, so that argument is null.

                    Whatever. Till at the mill all you want; many Gays are already married, and the world didn't end. They are getting married in Canada right now and yet the "institution of marriage" is still secure.

                    Why not defend the rights of others to live their lives in a way that is totally repugnant to your own? Is this america, or some fascist, third

                    • many Gays are already married, and the world didn't end.

                      I can see the bumper sticker now, "Same Sex marriage, at least it hasn't brought an end to the world yet?"

                      They are getting married in Canada right now and yet the "institution of marriage" is still secure.

                      A different institution of marriage. One stripped of its reason or cause, and replaced with simple love. And one that does not have sufficient interest from the state or populace. As Tom Hudson would point out, fewer people are getting married i
              • What On Lawn doesn't say is that he believes that gays can get married, but not to each other.

                I haven't said that?

                Got news for you - it's already happening.

                They are? That is news to me. All I see is the heavy hand of government forcing people to recognize homosexual impersonations of marriage as marriage. Prove me wrong ;)

                And now they're taking it a step further by allowing transsexuals to compete.

                And when women can no longer compete with male cross-dressers, I would presume that you will be very
        • Suppose a gay couple (two guys) want to get married. In On Lawn's world, they can't.

          Safety, you've been around well enough to know that is not what I am saying. True, I am saying they cannot marry each other, but marriage is still open to them.

          So, one of them gets a sex-change operation. Now they are man and "female."

          What is it, I ask, that a sex-change operation does that makes one of them "female"? A slice here, some implants there and some hormone therapy so that they look like a woman. I can dress
          • On Lawn again posts (this time about medical stuff) and displays an astounding ignorance of medicine...

            What is it, I ask, that a sex-change operation does that makes one of them "female"? A slice here, some implants there and some hormone therapy so that they look like a woman. I can dress up in a police uniform and look like a Cop, but that doesn't make me a cop in the eyes of the law now does it. What you desribe isn't a loophole, you must admit it simply describes impersonation. And the question is doe

            • brains and sexuality

              You pointed to an article from Scientific American as a way to use "brain size" as an indicator of gender instead of genetics or other physical features (something well beyond the scope of the article). We should call this an attempt to show the evidence that agrees with you in ignorance of the evidence that disagrees. It shows prejudice, and intellectual dishonesty.

              Don't get me wrong it is an intriguing study on just what happens to some people that find their gender uncomfortable. B

              • But I do not know of any branch in science that takes hormone imbalances/deficiencies and the effects it makes on the brain as exhoneration of behaviour.

                Nobody's talking of "exonerating" behaviour except you. You're the one with the "mote in his eye".

                You really are ignorant of current medical practice. The other link I gave you (which you omitted to mention) was the more specific of the two.

                The second article mentions a specific region of the hypothalmus. Read it. Follow it up. It's accepted science w


                • I have taken the liberty of translating each sentence into how it comes across to me. You can reference it back to your post above.

                  Unsupported accusation of rubber and glue. Unsupported accusation metaphore of rubber and glue.

                  Invective. Reference (vain accusation of intellectual honesty without showing it was needed) irrelevance.

                  Reference to irrelevance. Command. Command. Unsupported appeal to popularity. Accusation that transsexuality is a disease that is treated.

                  Unsupported reference.

                  So, reference:

      • What it boils down to is that On Lawn refuses to understand the difference between individuals exercising their freedoms, and LEGALLY IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS on those same freedoms.

        From where do you assume the freedom to define marriage (or get rid of it in your case)? The legally imposed restrictions are the constitution that dictates that we form such legal code through the legislative protocols.

        The difference between me and you is that I ignore your invectives and personal assaults and speak to the argum
        • More astroturfing:

          Where he gets that from the quoted text, "Fostering is a more accurate term of what gay and lesbian couples provide for children

          since they do not have the ability to parent their own children through their homosexual union," I don't know to be honest. In debate circles we call this a strawman. I'll note that a strawman of his construction is the only argument he chose to counter.

          As I pointed out, the original statement by On Lawn is a lie. There are plenty of lesbian and homosexual pa

          • More astroturfing:

            First of all, why do you call this "astroturfing"?

            As I pointed out, the original statement by On Lawn is a lie. There are plenty of lesbian and homosexual parents out there

            This is also dealt with elsewhere, homosexual couples cannot parent children. Sooner or later both a man and a woman are required for reproduction. Discussing this along the lines of individual capabilities is a red-herring, since an individual is also not a marriage, and an individual cannot have babies without he

            • You made it quite clear in your original post that you don't think we can say that gays and lesbians can adopt children "because they can't reproduce on their own", never mind that a lot of straight couples can't either.

              You don't like that gays and lesbians can adopt, and can be parents. To bad for you. Society isn't going to stay in one place to assuage your hurt feelings.

              As I said before, your comment insulted every adopted child, evry adoptive parent, and every step-parent and step-child.

              That hasn't c

              • never mind that a lot of straight couples can't either.

                Why should we not mind that? Why do you wish us to ignore that fact? I think its important to recognize that strait couples can adopt because (As I said above) it helps compensate for their handicapp.

                Honestly the ignorance you wish to inflict on others by telling them to "never mind" something.

                As I said before, your comment insulted every adopted child

                You are tilting at windmills again. The words you quote do not say anything offensive.
      • And I know children of lesbian couples who are so screwed up emotionally that they can't even get through a simple talk without having a nervous breakdown. So what?

        To me this proves that to have adequate childhood development, both a male and female role model must be present during the early years. Steal either one from the child- and you WILL harm that child.
  • Two principles set marriage apart from other loving relationships:
    1. one man and one woman
    2. till death do they part

    In 1969, the Left began a social experiment on marriage: no-fault divorce. This kind of divorce was legalized first in California and eventually became legal in all 50 states. No-fault divorce has been devastating to marriage. The Left's push of cohabitation has further eroded the principle of interpersonal commitment in society, which is vital to the success of marriage.

    Now, they come along

    • When sci-fi stories first started speculating on the alternate forms of marriage and interpersonal relationships we'd see in the future, I was both skeptical and uncomfortable with it.

      One story mentioned in passing that one of the main characters had, as a side issue, to decide whether to renew his 5-year marriage contract for another 5 years. He ultimately decides its a good idea, after scolding himself for his realization that he had been taking his spouse a bit for granted, and now has to worry if she

      • So you would say that any marriage that fails this test is not a valid marriage?

        "Till death do we part" is to be a whole-hearted, ironclad intention going into marriage. The Left has promoted the cavalier "we'll give it a shot and see how it goes" attitude, aided by prenuptial agreements. This is a defeatist attitude that, predictably, leads to a high failure rate.

        Divorce is a fact of life.

        So is murder. What's your point?

        It existed in the Bible.

        So did rape, and all manner of sin and atrocities.

        I

        • Only in the case of infidelity - that is, if you had already violated the marriage.

          Nope. Ezra chapters 9 & 10 - there was no infidelity, and yet 120 couples were commanded to get divorced.

          Then there's the new testament teaching - "If an unbelieving partner depart, let them depart" You have to let them go. It doesn't say "consider letting them depart", or "try to work things out, and if that fails, let them depart".

          ... concocted a living arrangement where kids won't be raised amidst the interaction

          • According to your statement, we should take the kids away from single mothers. There's no "both sexes in a family environment" there.

            A simpler solution is to encourage them to marry. That is shown to be better for the child, mother and much cheaper for the state. SuperYooser, do you encourage single mothers to get married?

            Your arguments are mighty thin gruel at best.

            Heh, I'd like to say that you wouldn't know it from your counter-arguments. Unless you pride yourself in being inable to penetrate thin g
            • I wrote:

              According to your statement, we should take the kids away from single mothers. There's no "both sexes in a family environment" there.

              On Lawn replied:

              A simpler solution is to encourage them to marry. That is shown to be better for the child, mother and much cheaper for the state. SuperYooser, do you encourage single mothers to get married?

              ... and still avoids answering the question. According to his original statement, he would want single women to have their children taken away.

              • and still avoids answering the question. According to his original statement, he would want single women to have their children taken away.

                What happened here is that your "question" was shown as a false dillema. Apperently you were the only one that didn't see that so allow me to explain it more directly.

                Essentially you argue, either children should be raised by both sexes in a family environment or children should be removed to be put in that environment.

                When in the case of single parents, a third opti

        • SuperYooser:

          Two principles set marriage apart from other loving relationships:

          • one man and one woman
          • till death do they part

          Tom:

          So you would say that any marriage that fails this test is not a valid marriage? In that case, maybe you should tell Nancy Reagan that she was never married to Ron.

          SuperYooser:

          "Till death do we part" is to be a whole-hearted, ironclad intention going into marriage.

          I'm suprised you gave him a pass here. Tom should explain just how your test would mean that Nancy and

          • Don't be a dope. Ronald Reagan was previously married to Jane Wyman before he divorced her and married Nancy. So Reagan would fail the proposed test of "till death do they part".

            Come on, I'm a Canadian, and I knew that without google's help. You'd think most Americans would.

            • Ronald Reagan was previously married to Jane Wyman before he divorced her and married Nancy.

              Yes they were. But that is not a failure of the proposed test "till death do they part", it is an example of it. That would be a failure of the test "till death they did not part". As SY points out, till death do they part is a commitment looking forward. You could easily say that because that commitment left, their marriage was dissolved and Reagan found a woman he was to until his death. Reagan is an perfect exam
              • On Lawn again trolls: But that is not a failure of the proposed test "till death do they part", it is an example of i Nope. Intent was never mentioned by the original poster.

                Here's the quote: Two principles set marriage apart from other loving relationships:

                1. one man and one woman
                2. till death do they part
                And as I pointed out, Reagan would fail that test.
                • On Lawn again trolls:

                  Once again dissagrement is trolling? To me you use it as an ephithet to stifle the discussion. That is neither enlightened nor tolerant.

                  Intent was never mentioned by the original poster.

                  Well, how can I argue with that? Intent was never mentioned... hmmm. Wait, I know how about an counter example! Yes if I can show where Superyooser did mention that "till death do us part" was an intent, then I have disproved your assertion, no? (Sorry, some people who simply assert themselves as l
  • I agree with everything you said- provided that it is limited to CIVIL marriage. The State providing marriage licenses in the first place is a horrible breach of separation of Church and State- and rightly should be abolished, or at the very least, modified so that a no-fault divorce is as cheap as a marriage license, and that equal benefits apply to the Cambodian who kidnaps a 12-year-old to marry as the gay who wants to marry the same sex as the civil-union-only hetero couple who will be getting a divorc

Slashdot Top Deals

"The pyramid is opening!" "Which one?" "The one with the ever-widening hole in it!" -- The Firesign Theatre

Close