On the issue of gender differences, I got into a very heated argument with a feminist once (heated from her side, at least) because I said that men have coarser skin and hair than women do. She didn't want to accept that these biological differences (other than the more obvious ones) existed because then she thought it would open the door for the argument that there could be physical differences in the brain that caused differences in types of intelligence, emotions, and behavior - which *any* reputable psychologist will tell you is the case. The bottom line is that being equal in value doesn't mean being exactly the same.

Still left unsaid is how many hundreds of millions of dollars over the years an already broken state and its municipalities are on the hook for by giving these freaks pension and health care benefits.
We are going the way of Greece in more ways than one!

Without paying much attention to the issue, I figured a civil union would cover people of same and opposite sexes who choose to be civilly unified. What does religion have to do with any of this, anyway?

Maybe I'm mistaken, but religious groups have nothing to do with a person's rights, except within the confines of that religion, which has nothing to do with the state.

Why anybody would seek to be recognized by a religion that doesn't want them is beyond me.

I think it's interesting that both blog owners strongly oppose this new law, but for opposite reasons. The other blog wanted this bill vetoed because it didn't go far enough. I think Justin feels this law goes too far and never should have seen the light of day.

It was interesting during debate when the "separate but equal" came up that Rep Karen MacBeth offered to make the separates equal. Remove all reference to "marriage" and make everyone in the state recognized as a "civil union". If someone wants a "marriage", go get that from a religious institution. Otherwise, it's really just a legal, contractual relationship between two people. That's what they have now, with the one exception being that religious-affiliated organizations are not required to recognize the union.

The bottom line is that separate and unequal are entirely appropriate when two groups are not similarly situated. Unless one takes the extreme radical view that men and women are not differentiable — that they are entirely the same — then there will remain the possibility that it's reasonable to treat the relationships that they have with each other as unique.

So your contention, Justin, is that is acceptable to discriminate against those who are not like you. I know quite a few women who would disagree, but it's refreshing to see you out of the closest so to speak in your defense of bigotry.

I'll one-up you:

"Every individual and organization ought to be empowered to define marriage uniquely, and our government shouldn't bother to."

I really don't get how government should be involved with marriage in any way besides enforcing a business contract like any other. Three people want to get 'civil-unioned'? Let 'em; who cares?

What activists like Nesselbush wish to do is to disallow society from observing the uniqueness of intimate relationships between members of our species' two genders, which by their nature have the capacity to generate new human beings.

So, Justin, you also approve of a business denying health benefits to an elderly couple who married clearly after child-bearing years because that relationship does not have the capacity to generate new human beings. Please, do tell us more about your plan to disenfranchise the elderly from the civil and legal protections reserved for breeders.

Russ

It's not discrimination, at least invidious discrimination, if the people aren't similarly situated. I'm not disabled, so I can't get benefits. You haven't studied medicine, so you can't practice medicine. Marriage is a particular relationship. The fact that some residents have no interest in such relationships does not mean that they have a civil right to the closest approximation that they desire.

"It's not discrimination, at least invidious discrimination, if the people aren't similarly situated."

So let's be clear, you have no problem with a business discriminating against women because clearly they are not the same as men and so can and maybe even should be treated as unequal and you would support a business who decided to deny benefits to an elderly married couple because they are not able to have children.

Me, I say these are all people and deserve the same protections and benefits that I receive. Let's at least be honest about what you're defending.

"Marriage is a particular relationship."

Which you seek to define in a legal sense as being only between those who have "the capacity to generate new human beings" based on your personal religious sensibilities. Yes?

Russ,

Your thought has the subtly of those pillars they use to bang posts into the riverbed.

Step 1: I believe our civilization does well to foster social expectations to encourage the birth of children into stable relationships consisting of his or her biological parents, including recognition from the government.
Step 2: Government should not be empowered to pick people's mates.
Step 3: Marriage as an institution is a suitably broad regulation, defining applicable relationships as opposite-sex, not-closely-related pairs involving relationships that are naturally procreative as a category (if not in specific instances), and that's it.
Step 3: It is possible for elderly people to fulfill those obligations, and their marriages do not change the procreative dynamic of marriage inasmuch as they likely have children or, at any rate, are indistinguishable from those that do.

The thing you're missing, Russ, is that "similarly situated" is a matter of judgment, and I'm saying that it's reasonable to suggest that a category of relationship that, if not hindered by illness or other difficulties, is procreative is different than one that is not.

Russ, the discrimination card does not work here. By current definition, marriage is between two people of the opposite sex.

And before you play the “slavery” card as that is also a defined in the dictionary. The difference is that a change to the definition of slavery is not being proposed. “Slavery” , like “murder” was deemed wrong and unconstitutional. If you want to claim that the definition of marriage is inherently discriminatory, then argue that point. I’ll acknowledge there is some merit to it.

But if you play the discrimination card, then that also applies to any legal arrangement between anybody or thing. If I want to marry my pet, mother, father, everyone on my street – then that choice should be granted legal status or else it is “discrimination”.

"...the discrimination card does not work here. By current definition, marriage is between two people of the opposite sex."

So it was also not discrimination when marriage was by definition between a man and a woman of the same race?

What Justin attempts to do above is slip in his religious conception of marriage as being only for procreation ("by their nature have the capacity to generate new human beings"). He's yet to answer me if elderly couples can be disenfranchised from their legal status as married couples, which at least would be a consistent stance to take. I suspect he won't which shows the lengths some will go to to avoid thinking of themselves as bigoted.

As for the rest, yes, I discriminate against animals by denying them all of the rights of humans. But let me get this straight, your point is I should view gay people as subhuman?

Ah, Russ is engaging in his typical word-twisting sophism. Notice how he re-states what Justin wrote inaccurately, then argues against what he wrote.

Why is this a problem in the first place? Because the Left posits the State as the head of society, with the powers to redefine the language and to force people to accept whatever social institutions the government imposes on them. In a free society as originally established in this country, the government does not have that power.

(Note that this does not apply to slavery as addressed in the Constitution and the Founders' other writings. There was no redefinition of "slavery", only a delay in the inevitable reconciliation of the institution with the Declaration of Independence - through the extinction of the institution. Lincoln's famous July 9 response to Sen. Douglas is the best explanation.)

The Left and the gay lobby try to redefine a societal institution as a "civil right"; i.e., as a matter of constitutional law. But the institution of marriage was not envisioned as being under the government's control - it is part of our society and our culture, which are bigger than government. But the government, as a creation of our society, is not superior to it.

No matter what "civil union" or "gay marriage" laws may be passed by politicians, people will still decide for themselves whether homosexuality is "normal" and plays an equivalent role in society as traditional marriage. So far, every statewide referendum on the topic indicates that most people do not believe that.

And until government creates the Thought Police, people will be free to think that.

"Notice how he re-states what Justin wrote inaccurately, then argues against what he wrote."

No idea, what you're talking about there. I asked Justin to clarify and he responded with a personal attack (I can only wonder how tough it is to be as smart as Justin in these moments) and a rambling stream of points that reflect the contortions necessary to avoid the conclusion that this is really about discrimination.

Bob at least is honest about his view that the majority should be allowed to discriminate against minorities ("...people will still decide for themselves whether homosexuality is 'normal' and plays an equivalent role in society as traditional marriage").

Russ has an unusual, perhaps unique, definition of the word "discrimination". He is trying to make an equivalency between the fact that people notice differences in behavior among other people, and make judgments about that behavior, and issues of civil rights.

People can (and have the right to) "discriminate" with respect to motorcycle gangs, kids blasting rap out their car windows, and people engaging in lewd public acts. (The propensity for gay activists to do the latter in the "pride" parades does not help their case.) That is an entirely different matter from discrimination based on race, but the Left has to deny this truth in order to argue its case.

And now, having kicked sand in Justin's face, he's playing the "victim".

Russ,

Another red herring, marriage was never ever defined as being in the same race. That was a ban based on discrimination against inter-racial marriage. THAT was discriminatory, like the ban against gays serving in the military.

I happen to agree with yout that the procreation argument is inconsistent but you are no more consistent. How is denying relatives or multiple marriages not discriminatory? Allowing those doesn't even change the definition of marriage.

"marriage was never defined as being in the same race"

Well it's NOT defined as between a man and a woman, either:

www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE15/15-1/INDEX.HTM

There's nothing in there that that says two men shouldn't be able to get a marriage license together, which is exactly how judges in several other states interpreted their laws, sparking this whole thing. Some states DO define it. Ours hasn't.

And look, they make exceptions to some pretty important rules that prevent inbreeding for the sake of a religion that's less than 2% of the population (§15-1-4). You can't make LESS of a stretch to accommodate the 5-10% of the population that's not straight?

See, this is why regulation of marriage is a mess, and should fall on unencumbered consciences instead of majority rule.

I get the idea that Russ thinks national borders are discriminatory,so why bother arguing with him?
This same sex marriage dispute is like herpes-it never goes away.
I hope civil union law puts it on the back burner-we've wasted enough time and energy on it.

What gets me about the debate about the civil union bill is the objection to the exemption for religious institutions and their employees. IMHO, the same people who are objecting to this exemption are the same ones who scream "separation of church" at the drop of a hat whenever convenient to their "beliefs". It has the appearance of hypocrisy. I understand religious based hospitals is a touchy subject, but the objection seems to go beyond that.

Apparently, Russian is the only one allowed to pepper his comments with insulting phrases. Of course, he then goes on to illustrate that a larger, more blunt analogy would have been justified.

No contortions are necessary. Simply defining marriage as a male-female relationship is sufficient regulation, because most such relationships will create children, and those that do not also do not contradict the principle. It's one of those blinding obvious things that radicals expend a great deal of tints not to see. Marriage is male-female because men and women are the procreation basis for a biological family.

A similar elision is observable in Mangeek's point: the definition does not appear in the law because it didn't have to. Similarly, laws do not contain, within themselves definitions of 'and,' 'notwithstanding,' and 'statute.' If judges decide that such words mean something else, all sorts of strange arguments will become possible.

As for race, the question was not whether blacks could enter into marriages; it was whether they ought to be restricted from marrying whites. My explanation of marriage as best left with the light regulation of merely being male-female is actually in perfect harmony with racial civil rights.

I guess I don't understand the law mangeek linked to fully:

"Men forbidden to marry kindred. – No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, stepmother, grandfather's wife, son's wife, son's son's wife, daughter's son's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's son's daughter, wife's daughter's daughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, or mother's sister. "

Let's look at what was spelled out. First, let's leave out all "first blood" and "second blood" relatives. But what about the others?

What's the difference between a grandmother and "grandfather's wife"? That's one of two things. Either they mean your grandfather's ex-second wife, which I don't know why you can't marry into that situation, or they mean your grandfather's current second wife, which would be bigamy on her part, and that's illegal anyway. There is also bigamy with the "son's son's wife, daughter's son's wife, wife's mother, wife's daughter's daughter" and so on. Many of these are either covered under bigamy laws, or they're banning the marriage between two unrelated people who may have been previously related by marriage.

"How is denying relatives or multiple marriages not discriminatory?"

That's actually an interesting question. I think we could argue that the ban on polygamy is discriminatory against certain faiths, but arguing that bans on marrying close relatives is discrimination is a bit of a stretch and only discrimination is we ignore that the term normally applies to prejudicial treatment of a specific categories of people (esp. race, age, sex, or sexual orientation).

"marriage was never defined as being in the same race"

Um, yes it was. We're talking about "marriage" as defined by the state, so the majority of states with laws banning interracial marriage back in the '40s certainly defined marriage as between two members of the same race. No question.

Simply defining marriage as a male-female relationship is sufficient regulation, because most such relationships will create children, and those that do not also do not contradict the principle."

So there you have it. And I'm sure that's news to the many childless couples in sham marriages. "Rhody's Littlest Taliban" thinks your "marriage" is only about procreation. All other legal considerations (and there are many) are irrelevant. Who is it again that's supposedly redefining marriage?

In the eye of the common law, marriage appears in no other light than that of a civil contract: and to this contract the agreement of the parties, the essence of every rational contract, is indispensably required… It will be proper, in the next place, to consider the consequences of marriage.

The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become, in law, only one person: the legal existence of the wife is consolidated into that of the husband. Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend.
-- James Wilson, 1792

Or as the Local Taliban would have it, marriage is solely about procreation (oh, and please ignore that many gay couples have children... it's all about the sex act).

Russ, merely repeating your refuted arguments is not going to make them any more convincing.

And merely saying things are refuted doesn't mean you've convinced anyone.

Clearly marriage was and is primarily a form of contract and excluding a class of people from those legal protections based on their sexual orientation is discriminatory, unless we redefine marriage to mean an agreement entered solely for the purpose of procreation, a meaning entirely within the religious context of the institution.

Surprised you didn't accuse me of quoting Wilson out of context (must be slipping in your witty repartee).

Russ,

Now you're doubling down on both the Bling-edged logic and the ad hominem. I did not say that marriage is ONLY for procreation. I said that the potential of procreation is central to the notion of marriage.

I've said before that there is a legitimate argument for other relationship categories that answer some of the other purposes and uses of marriage, but that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't be able to differentiate make-female relationships that by their nature tend toward children.

"the potential of procreation is central to the notion of marriage"

In that case, and in accordance with the holy books, it would be wise to allow men to take several wives.

You'll notice that I'm not averse to that, nor a wife having several husbands, or intra-familial 'marriages', or whatever.

The purpose of 'marriage' has nothing to do with being able to 'produce' a child, and a whole lot to do with providing a fiscally stable household that can actually support them. Two or more people who are legally bound together in a way that encourages them to pool resources makes for a healthier society, especially for children (be they natural, adopted, etc.). Letting more people 'bind together' into more stable units seems like a win-win from an ethical and public-policy standpoint. Conversely, making marriages -harder to dissolve- also seems wise.

Hey, you're welcome to lay off the ad hominem any time. By my reckoning I resisted responding to more than one taunt on your part, along with the usual chorus of ad hominem attacks you folks seem to enjoy so much. Mine at least had a point, that your view of marriage is based on the religious definition not the legal one.

You seem to ignore my quote above which contradicts your point about what I agree is a traditional notion of the religious institution.

I don't see any reason for your "seperate but equal" proposal. Marriage is the proper term. If only folks would stop confusing their religious beliefs with my or others' relationships.

Hear, hear, mangeek.

"So your contention, Justin, is that is acceptable to discriminate against those who are not like you. I know quite a few women who would disagree, but it's refreshing to see you out of the closest [sic] so to speak in your defense of bigotry."

This is Russ's first post in the thread, combining the gay imagery of "out of the closet" with accusing Justin of bigotry.

I guess he forgot about it when pontificating about "ad hominem".

btw, I'm still not clear on why you think it's not discrimination if there is a "difference."

That seems to me to have been the basis for all discrimination and the justification for it throughout the ages. They are not like us and therefore do not have the same rights that we reserve for ourselves.

I think ultimately the argument falls flat on its merits though, once you discard the religious procreation canard. Loving couples are not so different, no matter their age, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Russ continues to argue against his own fantasies rather than what others have written. Nobody has argued that "loving couples" do not have the right to be. That is a different thing from extending the meaning of the word signifying the societal institution of "marriage" to forms of interpersonal union that it has never before signified, and using government power to force the majority in society to accept that, at the demand of a small but loud special interest.

couples are not so different, no matter their age, race, religion, or sexual orientation.
Posted by Russ at July 7, 2011 2:49 PM

That is your OPINION not fact. An opinion most of the world doesn't share.
Tolerance of sodomy is regressive. It is time for us to move into the 21st century. 2500 years ago primitive society condoned and even accepted this filth. Indeed, in Greece, if you didn't let your son get sodomized by a noble who fancied him you might end up dead. After the fall of the ancient world both Christians and Muslims executed these offenders. Which is a penalty still carried out either officially or unofficially over large swaths of the planet.
Hate to dissilusion the apologists, but none other than the UNited Nations recently voted to support sodomites. Here's the story:

This Blog
Linked From Here
Inmates' blogs
Online Press & Media
Links & Resources
This Blog




Linked From Here




Inmates' blogs




Online Press & Media




Links & Resources




Loading...

Friday, November 19, 2010
UN deletes gay reference from anti-execution measures
A United Nations panel has deleted a reference to gays and lesbians in a resolution condemning unjustified executions.

The motion was introduced by Morocco and Mali and the vast majority of countries in support were African or Arabic.

Many of the supporting countries criminalise homosexuality and five treat it as a capital offence.

The amendment called for the words “sexual orientation” to be replaced with “discriminatory reasons on any basis”. The resolution makes explicit reference to a large number of groups, including human rights defenders, religious and ethnic minorities and street children.

It narrowly passed 79-70 and was then approved by the UN General Assembly committee with 165 in favour and ten abstentions.

The amendment, which condemns extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions and other killings, is voted on by the UN General Assembly every two years.

It has contained a reference to sexual orientation for the last ten years.

Cary Alan Johnson, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, said: “This vote is a dangerous and disturbing development.

“It essentially removes the important recognition of the particular vulnerability faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people – a recognition that is crucial at a time when 76 countries around the world criminalise homosexuality, five consider it a capital crime, and countries like Uganda are considering adding the death penalty to their laws criminalising homosexuality.”

Source: Pink News, November 19, 2010

‘Shameful’ UN vote ‘may lead to more gay executions’

A United Nations panel’s decision to remove sexual orientation from an anti-execution resolution is “shameful” and may encourage murders of LGBT people, gay rights campaigners say.

The body voted this week on the amendment, which was passed 79-70. The vast majority of countries in support of the change were African or Arabic.

Veteran gay rights activist Peter Tatchell said the move was a “shameful day in United Nations history” and would give a “de facto green light to the on-going murder of LGBT people by homophobic regimes, death squads and vigilantes”.

Gay rights group Stonewall also criticised the move and said the government should “lead from the front foot” to end homophobic persecution.

Chief executive Ben Summerskill said: “The vote by a UN panel to remove sexual orientation from this significant resolution is deeply disturbing. Lesbian, gay and bisexual people face violence, abuse and in some states, execution, because of their sexual orientation.

“This is a worrying and regressive step. We call on the UK government to lead from the front foot to end the persecution of gay people in other countries.’

The resolution, which the UN votes on every two years, has contained a reference to lesbian and gay people since 1999. It condemns extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions and other killings.

It still includes references to a variety of other groups, such as human rights defenders, religious and ethnic minorities and street children.

Introduced by Morocco and Mali, the amendment called for the words “sexual orientation” to be replaced with “discriminatory reasons on any basis”.

Mr Tatchell said homophobic countries would “take comfort from the fact that the UN does not endorse the protection of LGBT people against hate-motivated murder”.

He added: “The UN vote is in direct defiance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees equal treatment, non-discrimination and the right to life. What is the point of the UN if it refuses to uphold its own humanitarian values and declarations?

“Many of the nations that voted for this amendment want to ensure that their anti-gay policies are not scrutinised or condemned by the UN. Even if they don’t directly sanction the killing of LGBT people, they have lined up alongside nations that do.”

Mr Tatchell also criticised South Africa and Cuba, who voted in favour of the amendment.

“Presidents Raul Castro and Jacob Zuma should hang their heads in shame. They’ve betrayed the liberation ideals that they profess to uphold,” he said.

Earlier this week, Cary Alan Johnson, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, said the vote was a “dangerous and disturbing development” for gay people.

Source: Pink News, November 19, 2010

UN panel cuts gay reference from violence measure

November 16, 2010: Arab and African nations succeeded in getting a U.N. General Assembly panel to delete from a resolution condemning unjustified executions a specific reference to killings due to sexual orientation.

Western delegations expressed disappointment in the human rights committee's vote to remove the reference to slayings due to sexual orientation from the resolution on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions.

The General Assembly passes a resolution condemning extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions and other killings every two years. The 2008 declaration included an explicit reference to killings committed because of the victims' sexual preferences.

But this year, Morocco and Mali introduced an amendment on behalf of African and Islamic nations that called for deleting the words "sexual orientation" and replacing them with "discriminatory reasons on any basis."

That amendment narrowly passed 79-70. The resolution then was approved by the committee, which includes all 192 U.N. member states, with 165 in favour, 10 abstentions and no votes against.

The resolution, which is expected to be formally adopted by the General Assembly in December, specifies many other types of violence, including killings for racial, national, ethnic, religious or linguistic reasons and killings of refugees, indigenous people and other groups.

"It's a step backwards and it's extremely disappointing that some countries felt the need to remove the reference to sexual orientation, when sexual orientation is the very reason why so many people around the world have been subjected to violence," said Philippe Bolopion of Human Rights Watch.

Source: Reuters, November 16, 2010

Countries that voted to delete sexual orientation from anti-execution measures:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Salam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Countries that voted against:

Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia,Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland,India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Countries that abstained:

Antigua-Barbuda, Barbados, Belarus, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Colombia, Fiji, Mauritius, Mongolia, Papau New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Vanuatu

Russ continues to argue against his own fantasies rather than what others have written. Nobody has argued that "loving couples" do not have the right to be.

Um, that's not what I said. Read it again.

That is a different thing from extending the meaning of the word signifying the societal institution of "marriage" to forms of interpersonal union that it has never before signified...

So you would have defended continuing bans on interracial marriage that were common in the 40s and 50s for the same reason? Otherwise, I'm not following you. I don't see how one commitment to a partner is different than the other.

Russ, I would be sorry that you are unable to follow me, but I know that you are merely unwilling. I wrote much earlier in this thread about the different between this and the race, issue, but like a typical lib you keep playing the race card.

Races are no longer wild in this game, so it won't work.