Miss California

[dorispulaski]

Actually this happens already. John is gay. He shares a house with Jane who is not. Since they have lived together for 7 years, Jane's workplace treats John and Jane as domestic partners here in CT, and John's health is covered by Jane's insurance.

I actually know this couple.

 

[Ptichka]

Well, New England is in its own category, right ? In any case, if John & Jane where siblings, they couldn't do that. Why?

 

[dorispulaski]

Actually, they can--that's how the benefits are administered at the casinos here (Foxwoods & Mohegan Sun). I just can't call to mind any siblings I know that are doing this. But John (not his name) in the example is my hairdresser. It's keyed to sharing an address for a long period of time, or marriage, whichever.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Doris - Thanks for clearing up the Declaration and the Constitution.

I just feel that there are so many posters saying indirectly that gay people are just not acceptable in the present society for equality with other ethnic groups. I believe they were brought up with that conviction by their religious training and supported by their parents. It frightens little boys and girls who have gay feelings at an early age.

Problem with those opposed to gay marriage is that they have difficulty in expressing what their convictions are based on, and just disagree without true reasonings. Support from others is a big help in the disapproval of gay marriage. Similar cultural backgrounds, parents and those who agree is sufficient. No real reasons needed.

 

[CzarinaAnya]

There is nothing wrong with not believeing in same-sex marriage. That is an opinion and it is based on your religion and not on the constitution that all people are created equal In effect, Miss California is saying the constitution is wrong.

The best way for the gay haters to address this is to have the constitution amended to say most people are equal.

For Miss California I would suggest she learn some new christan music to sing on saleable recordings, and stay clear of show biz work for obvious reasons.

I never heard someone say that gay people aren't equally human to everyone else. Of course we're created equal. It's what they're doing with their lives sexually that I believe is wrong, but that doesn't make me think any less of someone or whatever.

 

[skatingbc]

I never heard someone say that gay people aren't equally human to everyone else. Of course we're created equal. It's what they're doing with their lives sexually that I believe is wrong, but that doesn't make me think any less of someone or whatever.

But not allowing someone to marry based on their sexual orientation is indirectly saying that they are not equally human. Not allowing homosexual marraige is discrimination pure and simple. Disagree with what they are doing, that's ok by me. But they do deserve the same rights as everyone else.

 

[Medusa]

I never heard someone say that gay people aren't equally human to everyone else. Of course we're created equal. It's what they're doing with their lives sexually that I believe is wrong, but that doesn't make me think any less of someone or whatever.

You want me to believe that you can think that gay people make wrong decisions concerning their lives, without actually knowing them - but at the same time you don't think any less of gay people?

It's completely beyond me how people even care about with whom other people fall in love with, with whom they have sex etc. They don't force you to do anything, they don't hurt you... I read this really interesting paper once, about decriminalisation of homosexuality in France (it was a done deal with the Code Civil in 1791). And that didn't happen because the French were that much more free-spirited and open-minded than the rest of Europe / Colonies. It happened because the main principle of French law is that there has to be a victim of a crime, otherwise it's not a crime. And those French bereaucrats back then must have realised: there is simply no victim if homosexual sex practises / homosexual relationships are among consensual adults. That's how it was decriminalised.

How can something be wrong if it doesn't hurt anybody?

 

[antmanb]

You want me to believe that you can think that gay people make wrong decisions concerning their lives, without actually knowing them - but at the same time you don't think any less of gay people?

It's completely beyond me how people even care about with whom other people fall in love with, with whom they have sex etc. They don't force you to do anything, they don't hurt you... I read this really interesting paper once, about decriminalisation of homosexuality in France (it was a done deal with the Code Civil in 1791). And that didn't happen because the French were that much more free-spirited and open-minded than the rest of Europe / Colonies. It happened because the main principle of French law is that there has to be a victim of a crime, otherwise it's not a crime. And those French bereaucrats back then must have realised: there is simply no victim if homosexual sex practises / homosexual relationships are among consensual adults. That's how it was decriminalised.

How can something be wrong if it doesn't hurt anybody?

Great post Medusa! And Doris i've read all of your posts with great interest too.

Ant

 

[Buttercup]

What Medusa wrote :agree:. I just don't get why anybody cares what consenting adults do with each other, and I fail to see why I can get married as I please, while my gay friends can't have their relationships recognized officially.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I never heard someone say that gay people aren't equally human to everyone else. Of course we're created equal. It's what they're doing with their lives sexually that I believe is wrong, but that doesn't make me think any less of someone or whatever.

Are heterosexual murderers doing the right thing with their lives? They can get married in prison. It is not uncommon for a woman (or man) to take pity on a convict and marry one.

Should heterosexuals indulge before marriage? Some people believe that is wrong. It's all a matter of consentual agreement which is wrong by the bible - not by the civil law.

 

[Ptichka]

It's completely beyond me how people even care about with whom other people fall in love with, with whom they have sex etc.

Just to play the devil's advocate here - do you also believe that siblings should be allowed to fall in love and marry?

 

[antmanb]

Just to play the devil's advocate here - do you also believe that siblings should be allowed to fall in love and marry?

Why is that question even relevant? Incest and homosexuality have nothing whatsoever in common with each other.

Isn't it the case that incest laws were brought about because of the very real risk of medical problems arising from "in-breeding"? (Or is that a fallacy?)

If that was the reason then obviously that isn't even a consideration for homosexual couples who cannot have children without outside help.

Ant

 

[Ptichka]

Ant, in no way am I equating the two! However, all I'm trying to demonstrate is that when we say that we don't care who one marries, it's not really true. Instead, we evaluate each type of case on its own merits, including just how we as a society feel about it. As to in-breeding problems, it's questionable; the risk does increase, but it's by no means certain or, I believe, even probable (besides, most states actually prohibit adopted siblings to marry as well, though that's not the case in the UK); in fact, we'd let two people with, say, Tay-Sachs marry even though their chance of having a child who's guaranteed to die by the age of 4 is 25%. Another question of state-regulated marriages is polygamy; there, I actually see less of a difference with homosexuality - why not let a woman have two husbands (assuming they both consent) if we let her enter into a marriage other than 1 woman-1 man? Though to me, polygamy should actually be legal - but in a perfect world, meaning I have no problem with polygamy among consenting adults (though it would create a legal nightmare!) but the reality of polygamy is that too many young girls get forced into it, too many men are basically banished, etc, so I wouldn't want to legalize it in the society today.

 

[Medusa]

Isn't it the case that incest laws were brought about because of the very real risk of medical problems arising from "in-breeding"? (Or is that a fallacy?)

I believe that lots of religious laws - not all of them - are based on some kind of rational reason. E.g. all those food rules among the jews (pardon, that wasn't politically correct, was it?) have in my opinion a lot to do with the climate and living circumstances in the Middle East region - though one of my Jewish friends was really offended when I said that.

In the case of incest it's for sure that there are genetical problems arising from such practises among the offspring (but not every incest child is handicapped or suffering from diseases). The reason for those genetical problems is simple: there are loads and loads of diseases that are recessive. And mankind is very lucky that those are recessive, because it means that they occur very rarely. If you got a child with genetic material from father / daughter or brother / sister - every normally harmless recessive gene will suddenly mean a high probability that the offspring will suffer from said recessive disease (let's say the father has the recessive gene, he has two children - in each child the probability of them having the recessive gene is 50% - normally not a problem, because the probablity of them marrying someone with the same recessive gene is relatively small - but if those siblings have a child together, you suddenly have 25% probability).

But with our technical and scientific methods we could actually make sure that an incest couple will only have healthy children.

My biggest problem with incest is more on the psychological side: if a father wants to marry his daughter - how can society be sure that the relationship is actually consensual? For all we know that woman suffers from a life-long Stockholm Syndrom. There is basically no way to find out if this is a consensual relationship between adults. Similar stuff could go for brother / sister, brother / brother and sister / sister. How can you make sure that these relationships are actually consensual and not formed because she / he were raised to depend on brother / father / sister in every possible way from early childhood on? Make extensive psychological tests over a long period of time, question friends and family? I can't think of a humane and realistic solution.

EDIT: read Ptichka's post. I actually don't have a problem with polygamy. But there is not really injustice here, because nobody in our countries is allowed to marry more than one person at once. Same goes for the incest thing: the rules are the same for everyone. With gay marriage it's different: only women may marry men and only men may marry women. In this case - not all people have the same rights.

 

[Ptichka]

E.g. all those food rules among the jews (pardon, that wasn't politically correct, was it?) have in my opinion a lot to do with the climate and living circumstances in the Middle East region - though one of my Jewish friends was really offended when I said that.

You are absolutely right about most dietary laws. Not eating pork - that's because pork goes bad quicker in warm weather. In fact, the pagan beliefs that pre-Judaism Jews (sic!) held said that the devil take the form of a pig, so you can't eat it for fear of become a devil, so it appears to be a truly ancient prohibition. Similar logic likely applies to prohibited seafood. OTOH, not mixing meat and dairy appears to have no logic behind it at all (Bible says 3 times "Never cook a young goat in its mother's milk" - likely it was a pagan ritual).

In the case of incest it's for sure that there are genetical problems arising from such practises among the offspring (but not every incest child is handicapped or suffering from diseases)

What about two adults with Tay-Sachs recessive gene? Should they be allowed to marry? Their chance of having a child with Tay-Sachs is likewise 25%? (Most modern Jews get tested before having children, but many, especially in the ultra-Orthodox community, do not)

My biggest problem with incest is more on the psychological side:

Yeah, I certainly dodged most of this issue by saying brother/sister as opposed to father/daughter! With siblings, I think the risk is no greater than with any other relationship - in truth any marriage may have been coerced.

Same goes for the incest thing: the rules are the same for everyone. With gay marriage it's different: only women may marry men and only men may marry women. In this case - not all people have the same rights.

I think this is a logical fallacy. Everyone can choose to marry who they want, but I am not allowed to, because I happen to share parents with my beloved. Or, vice versa - everyone is allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex, including a gay person; there is no discrimination here. Your logic regarding polygamy is probably right, though.

 

[Particle Man]

There is nothing wrong with not believeing in same-sex marriage. That is an opinion and it is based on your religion and not on the constitution that all people are created equal In effect, Miss California is saying the constitution is wrong.

It is wrong. All people are not created equal. I'm smarter than almost all of them.

 

[vlaurend]

I never heard someone say that gay people aren't equally human to everyone else. Of course we're created equal. It's what they're doing with their lives sexually that I believe is wrong, but that doesn't make me think any less of someone or whatever.

You have every right to hold those beliefs, and you probably believe homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the Bible. Am I right?

If so, here is something for you to consider: In our country, we have freedom of religion, which means we have the right to practice our own religious beliefs and rituals and we must also allow others to practice theirs, even if our religion says their religion is wrong. Correct?

Would you try to pass a law making another religion illegal because that religion goes against the teachings of your religion? No? Then why would you try to make homosexual marriage illegal because your religion says it is wrong? What's the difference?

This is why nobody should be able to make a law imposing limits on people just because of some people's religious beliefs. And that's what I see going on here.

 

[vlaurend]

What about two adults with Tay-Sachs recessive gene? Should they be allowed to marry? Their chance of having a child with Tay-Sachs is likewise 25%? (Most modern Jews get tested before having children, but many, especially in the ultra-Orthodox community, do not)


Yeah, I certainly dodged most of this issue by saying brother/sister as opposed to father/daughter! With siblings, I think the risk is no greater than with any other relationship - in truth any marriage may have been coerced.


I think this is a logical fallacy. Everyone can choose to marry who they want, but I am not allowed to, because I happen to share parents with my beloved. Or, vice versa - everyone is allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex, including a gay person; there is no discrimination here. Your logic regarding polygamy is probably right, though.

Logically and legally, that is actually a really interesting argument! Homosexuality and incest have both been taboo in many societies--but not all societies--but societal norms and traditions should not dictate what is "fair" and "legal" if nobody is being hurt by allowing someone that right. Based on genetic research and millenia of evidence, it's generally a bad idea for closely related people to have a child together, but what if they were to get married for legal reasons and agree not to have a child? By the same token, if a woman knows that she is very likely to pass along some undesirable disease or deformity to her child, shouldn't she be forbidden from getting married? Or becoming pregnant? This is definitely a very complex issue!

 

[DaveT]

I think this is a logical fallacy. Everyone can choose to marry who they want, but I am not allowed to, because I happen to share parents with my beloved. Or, vice versa - everyone is allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex, including a gay person; there is no discrimination here. Your logic regarding polygamy is probably right, though.

So, assuming you are heterosexual and you were told you could only marry someone of the same sex, you would have no problem with that? I don't know if you are a man or a woman, but let's say you are a heterosexual woman and you are told you can only marry another woman, you don't see any discrimination there? From your posts, I'm guessing you seem to think people choose to be gay - did you choose to be heterosexual?

Perhaps we explore other traits of birth to be prevented from getting married? Brown haired people perhaps? Certainly they don't deserve the same rights as the blonde haired people.

 

[Particle Man]

Rhetorical question -- when will the human race collectively crawl out of the slime, and the people that comprise it become concerned about something more than just their own selfish desires?

(Rhetorical answer -- it won't )

Conservatives want to destroy the earth, liberals want to destroy society. I picked the wrong planet, remind me to pick another one next time.

:thumbsup: <-- Electronic thumb to signal the UFO to pick me up