debate
I love political debates; especially when the subject matter is important to me. So naturally I have spent some time debating my views on Mayor Ralph Becker’s domestic partners proposal.
The debate however digressed to a general gay rights debate. It was quite interesting seeing the different arguments that were made for and against the domestic partnership proposal, and gay rights.
Some people seem to think that allowing homosexual marriage will in some way undermine or injure heterosexual marriage. I don’t understand where that idea comes from. If I were to marry a man would that somehow make a heterosexual husband and wife stop loving each other? Do two lesbians marrying each other somehow take something away from a heterosexual marriage?
Some of the people that argue against domestic partnerships and gay marriage say that heterosexual marriage has a stabilizing effect on our society, and that this is grounds to ban homosexual marriage. What these people fail to take into account is that even if homosexual marriage is band it does not mean that all the homosexuals are going to go out and get a heterosexual marriage; they’ll just remain unmarried. Also if marriage has such a stabilizing effect for heterosexuals could it not also have similar stabilizing effect for homosexuals; giving their relationships a sense of permanency?
There was of course a good amount of religious rhetoric that I found amusing. The thing is unless some one has the same beliefs as the person they are talking to, a religious argument will hold no water so I find them somewhat moot for this type of debate. This is not to say that I don’t have my own religious beliefs because I defiantly do.
Anyhow until next time,
XR4-IT
It’s funny that you find religious rhetoric amusing when this country was founded on the basis of there being a God. I don’t remember the saying being “in atheism we trust”. So, unfortunately for you I think you have to take into account religious rhetoric.
In your post you have stated some of the negative viewpoints that were presented during the debate but you haven’t pointed out any positive viewpoints. Since you want “proof” from the negative side that this is bad for society I want proof that it is positive for society. Please tell me how allowing this domestic partners proposal or gay rights in general is going to benefit a contributing to the population and well being of the United States heterosexual person. The only thing I see is that it will satiate a minority of the population for a short time and then they will ask more using this win as a springboard to launch other campaigns and agendas.
-H&K
I do not deny that belief in a god was intricately involved in the founding of this nation, and that many of the founders themselves were deeply religious men, but even those we call the Founding Fathers understood the danger of imposing religious ideals onto the people of a nation.
I believe that religion is a matter that lies only between a man and his god, and being that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” why then should men seek to use the law to impose on others their religious beliefs?
Many have said, “This thing or another is against the commandments of our god,” but I have my own religious beliefs, and my god does not tell me that those things are wrong. While I may be a minority does that give my religion any less value then the rest?
In the realm of political debate if I were to say, “My god says that homosexuality is ok for mankind to participate in,” would it convince some one who believes other wise?
You H&K ask me to answer your questions yet you fail to answer any of the questions posed in my blog article. I am left to believe then that you have no answer or do indeed agree with the points that I used the questions to make.
I will however take time to answer your question. Before I do answer your question I want you to understand that domestic partnerships are in no way our end goal, it is however a step toward what we want. So yes it will be used as a “springboard” to bring us closer to our goals.
I am going to rephrase your question to be what I understood you to mean (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong). How will providing rights including same-sex marriage to gay people benefit the remainder of society including heterosexuals?
The fist answer I would give was touched upon in the body of my article. It is said that marriage has a stabilizing effect on society. If this is true then it can be argued that it will help stabilize homosexual society, and I believe that stabilizing a facet of a society will help to maintain stability of the civil society as a whole. Especially since people aren’t going to stop being homosexual just because same-sex marriage is illegal.
Really if you want to know how allowing rights like same-sex marriage will affect you personally, well it probably will not. If the laws were to change today you would likely go about your day to day life and be affected not one lick. Though I suppose that you would benefit by not having to hear us whining about the unfairness of it all if the laws were to change.
Ok, this will be fun….1st I will answer your questions in your original post because according to you I must answer each and every question that you post or I am somehow agreeing with you or I don’t have anything to say…. Well, let me tell you potentially one other reason…I don’t agree with your question the way that it is worded and you have left out key details. Your Bible within a Bible as it were. But, I will go ahead and entertain you….
Your original post questions:
Alright, your 1st question “If I were to marry a man would that somehow make a heterosexual husband and wife stop loving each other?” – The way you have phrased it the answer is no but you fail to even bring up the affects that the man marrying the man change in law has to the overall definition of marriage…You want to consider yourself as a little micro society and that what you do as a society has no affect on the rest while at the same time you want the laws for all society to change. So, which way is it…is it only you or is it all of us…I’m confused.
2nd question – “Do two lesbians marrying each other somehow take something away from a heterosexual marriage?” – Potentially, yes. Depends on how the law has changed and what this new definition of marriage is.
3rd question – “Also if marriage has such a stabilizing effect for heterosexuals could it not also have similar stabilizing effect for homosexuals; giving their relationships a sense of permanency?” – Bla, bla, bla…maybe it will have the opposite effect. There is no definitive proof one way or the other.
Response questions:
1st question: “I believe that religion is a matter that lies only between a man and his god, and being that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” why then should men seek to use the law to impose on others their religious beliefs?” – Wow, your grasp of United States law and principles is truly amazing. I agree with you…to bad the definition of marriage is not just a religious based argument.
Number 2: “Many have said, “This thing or another is against the commandments of our god,” but I have my own religious beliefs, and my god does not tell me that those things are wrong. While I may be a minority does that give my religion any less value then the rest?” – I guess not…I don’t know what your religion is.
3: “In the realm of political debate if I were to say, “My god says that homosexuality is ok for mankind to participate in,” would it convince some one who believes other wise?” – probably not.
Okay…happy now…
Ok, now to the real stuff…if, as you say, “It is said that marriage has a stabilizing effect on society.” Why go and change the definition? If something is working why do you want to seek to reinterpret and potentially break it? It can also be argued that changing the definition of something that has a stabilizing effect on society can remove that stabilizing effect, and I guess you and your friends are willing to take that risk, but I’m not and there are many others that feel the same. And your correct, people aren’t going to stop doing stuff because it is against the law…but at least that fundamental stabilizing building block of society stays intact, at least until it gets changed and all hell breaks loose (well, there is a chance).
Also, what is the reason for marriage? Why would the government be interested in the definition of marriage in the 1st place? What does marriage bring the government? Well, in the current definition of marriage there is a benefit that would be virtually erased if homosexual marriage was made legal. Marriage between a man and woman generates potentially contributing members of society, true not every marriage brings forth children but the percentage chance is much greater then the nonexistent children in a homosexual relationship. You can’t build a country out of homosexual relationships…sorry. So, if you are the government doesn’t it make sense to reward the type of behavior that will bring you the most benefit?
And last of all, I don’t agree that changing the law won’t affect me. Again you want to point out that you and those you associate with are your own micro society that has no affect on the rest of society but at the same time you want the laws for all of society to change.
At least you recognize that you are whining, true you would stop whining about this but then you would find something else to whine about.
-H&K
I wonder if you understand how much I appreciated your last post H&K, thank you for the time you put into that.
From your last post I think you understand why I find religious rhetoric somewhat moot for this type of debate, and even get a little up tight when people try to cram religion down the throat of the political process.
At more then one place in your post you made reference to the “Definition of Marriage” so I decided to look it up in a few dictionaries, and this is what I found.
From the Encarta online Dictionary:
1. A legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners
2. A married relationship between two people, or a somebody’s relationship with his or her spouse.
3. The joining together in wedlock of two people.
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
So it seems that even our dictionaries don’t quite agree on what constitutes a marriage.
Likewise even within this nation state governments disagree on what a marriage actually is.
You seem to assert that expanding legal marriage to include same-sex marriage would take something away from a heterosexual marriage. I don’t understand what it would take away. Especially since same-sex marriage has been legal for several years in Massachusetts and in other nations, and the heterosexual marriages haven’t changed at all. If the laws regarding heterosexual marriage were left the same as they are now and were just duplicated to also be applied to same-sex marriage what would that take away from a heterosexual marriage? Could you or some one please explain that to me because I don’t understand that idea at all?
While I have been writing this post I have been doing some online research on the subject of civil marriage. It turns out the reason that we have marriage licenses now is because some states would not recognize interracial marriages and so they came up with the idea of a marriage license to show which marriages were recognized by the state. Eventually the Supreme Court steeped in and ruled that all the states had to recognize the interracial marriages.
I just thought I would let you think about that. It is really just interesting to read the history, and doesn’t really have anything to do with my argument. Well I guess you could say that this shows that the definition of marriage has changed in the past and will likely change again in the future.
I looked that up while I was wondering why the government gets involved in marriage in the first place. It seems to me that even if the United States did not have civil marriage the heterosexuals would still be out there making kids anyhow. On top of that many homosexual couples do raise children, and yes I understand the fact that they did not produce the children on their own, but they definitely are contributing to the future generation of a society by rearing children.
Children just seem to be the happy consequence of heterosexuals having sex, married or not. Even if heterosexuals were not out there having sex there are still plenty of ways go about producing children artificially anyhow.
Another thing I wonder is if you prefer unmarried people having sexual relationships, or homosexuals waiting to be married to one another to have sex? I think it would be easer for me and other homosexuals to say I won’t have sex until I’m married if that were even an option for us.