Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Historically, very few children are brought up in families with gay people, so it is not really a good comparison. In fact, this could be one of the better arguments against gay marriage, in that the vast majority of those who marry, will not want children.

As opposed to no positive evidence for the gay marriage side. No contest.

Consider this refuted. Start reading:

http://www.apa.org/pi/l&gbib.html

[Ned]

I love seen the Dems struggle with this issue. Here is recent exchange I witnessed,

Moderator: What is your position?

Dem: I favor leaving this matter to the states and oppose a constitutional amendment.

Moderator: But what if the Supreme Court rules the DoMA unconstitutional?

Dem: I would hope they would not.

Moderator: But what if they did?

Dem: I think gay marriage is a matter for the states to decide.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I challenge this assertion. Most children are brought up in marriages with two parents, even if they are not born into marriages with two parents. I'm not sure what you mean by the verb: brought up, which is rather vague.

Marriage is beneficial to women, in that they on average will be better off married, then single. Some will feel trapped, but these will be in the minority.

Right.

Whereabouts are 'most children' raised in marriages with TWO parents (presumably heterosexual)?

In all cultures? In all Western industrialized nations?

The statement 'marriage is beneficial to women' is so vague and non-specific as to be meaningless.

I suspect it is simply a piece of wish-fulfilment on your part: your religious/political ideals incline you to believe this, so you blandly state it is so.

[Ned]

Molly, I assume you do not oppose domestic partner cases and laws that give rights to partners who live together for extended periods of time.

[MrFun]

Things are heating up now in Portland, Oregon over this issue (if someone else mentioned this already, I can't be arsed to read all the recent posts).


Seems like the issue of marriages regardless of sexual orientation is spreading to more parts of the country. Can we expect it to arise in yet another city or state soon??

[Ned]

MrFun, the civil rebellion is looking more and more like the "underground railway" during the slave era and the sheltering of Jews during WWII. People are taking the law into their own hands.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, I assume you do not oppose domestic partner cases and laws that give rights to partners who live together for extended periods of time.

And you'd be right.

If you're going to have 'rights' then I'm all for more people having more rights, and not some people having exclusive rights.

Don't you believe in equality, Ned?

[MrFun]

I'm kinda worried though -- these actions by mayors can either break through what has been an impasse for too long, or create a vicious backlash from some of the Republican political leaders in cooperation with fundies.

[Ned]

Molly, yes I do.

But I raised the point b/c the woman in the Lee Marvin case got the equivalent of community property rights in Lee's substantial income. So, "marriages" or "domestic partner" rights do in fact benefit women who to the extent that they stay home and raise the kids, because here in Kalifornia, they are deemed to be an equal partner in all the "marital" income.

To the extent these rights extend to gays, ditto.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm kinda worried though -- these actions by mayors can either break through what has been an impasse for too long, or create a vicious backlash from some of the Republican political leaders in cooperation with fundies.

Mr. Fun, it will also force the Dems off their "non position" position.

I would hope that guys like Schwarzenegger have a say in the upcoming Republican convention. His popularity cannot have gone unnoticed to the Party leadership.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm kinda worried though -- these actions by mayors can either break through what has been an impasse for too long, or create a vicious backlash from some of the Republican political leaders in cooperation with fundies.

But the people who would oppose gay and lesbian 'marriages' are the ones who would do so, no matter when you thought the time was fit to perform those marriage ceremonies.

A life lived in fear, is a life half-lived: do the right thing now.

Which children of Lee Marvin's did the woman raise, Ned?

And why should it be exclusively, or mostly, women who do so?

Marriages also take place outside California and the United States, and you cannot state that in all cases, the marriage benefits the woman.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by molly bloom


But the people who would oppose gay and lesbian 'marriages' are the ones who would do so, no matter when you thought the time was fit to perform those marriage ceremonies.

A life lived in fear, is a life half-lived: do the right thing now.

I'm not exactly cowering with fear, Molly but I can't help but recall historical examples where backlash has put a stop to equal rights for a long period of time -- such as what happened in the South after the failure of Reconstruction in regards to race relations.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun


I'm not exactly cowering with fear, Molly but I can't help but recall historical examples where backlash has put a stop to equal rights for a long period of time -- such as what happened in the South after the failure of Reconstruction in regards to race relations.

Very good point, MrFun. That put the issue of civil rights on hold for 100 years.

[Ned]

Molly, on Lee Marvin - there were no kids involved, IIRC. She just lived with him in a sexual relationship. That was enough to give her 50% of Marvin's income, which was substantial.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by MrFun


I'm not exactly cowering with fear, Molly but I can't help but recall historical examples where backlash has put a stop to equal rights for a long period of time -- such as what happened in the South after the failure of Reconstruction in regards to race relations.

The fear isn't your literal fear- it's fear of doing what is just.

'There is only one argument for doing something; the rest are arguments for doing nothing.'

F.M. Cornford, Microcosmographia Academica

Don't act justly now, for fear that you might raise expectations that you could act more justly in the future, and not be able to meet those expectations; and whatever you do, do not carry out any admittedly just action now, for fear that either you, or your successors might not have the courage to do so in some future instance, which could superficially resemble this one.

There's also the 'time is not yet right' argument for doing nothing:

people should not this moment do what they think is right at that moment, because the moment at which they think it right, has not yet arrived.

Each uncustomary or untraditional public action is wrong, or if it is right, it is a dangerous precedent. In which case, nothing should ever be attempted for the first time.

All arguments for doing nothing.