Homosexual marriage

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think you're right about how the statistics should be done. How do you know that they aren't already done that way, though? I don't know how the statistics are done . . . Do you know better?

I'm fairly sure they aren't done that way, just from their language ("homosexual relationships" rather than, say "committed homosexual relationships" or "gays who consider themselves married," etc are compared to married men and women.) However, I was having distinct trouble via Google in finding any serious, long-term or large-scale studies in the last 10 years. Older data is less accurate to the modern day.

Also, there is a degree to which such studies are inherently biased in any case... which is that homosexual couples know they cannot be married, and that creates a different psychological state from a heterosexual couple that knows marriage is a real possibility. Such a psychological state would be likely to include a lesser committment to the relationship, with lower stakes attached. But that is speculation.

I also did see one study that said (as of 1995) Denmark had had gay marriage/partnership for 6 years and only 5% of gays had married, and 28% of those had ended in death or divorce in those 6 years. Which given the divorce rate in Scandinavian countries overall is higher than 28... (I will reGoogle and find the precise citation for the study if you wish... I don't have it at the moment).

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I guess this is the wrong thread for the discussion. Else I would analyze and then begin to argue.

Morality is determined by society - even religious morality. What a jew or a muslim sees as moral or immoral is different from christians. Even christians within the different branches feel a difference in morality.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Morality is determined by society - even religious morality. What a jew or a muslim sees as moral or immoral is different from christians. Even christians within the different branches feel a difference in morality.

I still say this is the wrong thread.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I still say this is the wrong thread.

Not when people are saying that homosexual marriage is wrong on moral grounds though.

or when you say the following in defense of your position -

I think it's obvious that how much one enjoys something is not an indicator as to whether something is moral or not. Some sadists have really enjoyed their cruelty, I'm sure. Thieves have greatly enjoyed their winnings. However, I think that in every society up to now, people have held to certain basic moral laws. Inked has posted some splendid stuff on this in other places, like I think in the "Why you believe what you believe" thread.

Not every society has had the same moral laws and morality changes. In our society it would be immoral to throw acid on a woman for seeing a man, but in many muslim countries this is accepted and defended.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

[Statistics] show whether homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love, by measuring the two in comparison to one another. Such comparisons must take place, must be performed if we are going to implement laws that have the statement fundamental to them that heterosexual unions are the same as homosexual unions.

. I can't see why it's fundamental. Is there some kind of quiet agreement that all marriages must be alike? So what if there are differences? Every marriage is unique and that goes for heterosexual and homosexual ones. The same laws should apply for all marriages, no matter how they differ from one another.

The arguments I hear as to why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, they sort of remind me of how people debated women's right to vote a hundred years ago. I mean, surely statistics show that women vote a bit differently than men but should that matter at all? Just an analogy.

[Millane]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Morality is determined by society and routinely changes. Today Marc Anthony would be in jail for child molestation - yet in roman times it was common for adult men to have 13 year old boys as lovers. This is just an example of how morality changes through the years.

i disagree, i think morality is determined by each of us individually, it is not morality changes that you are describing but changes in laws.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Millane

i disagree, i think morality is determined by each of us individually, it is not morality changes that you are describing but changes in laws.

We're affected and formed by the society we live in though.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jonathan

they sort of remind me of how people debated women's right to vote a hundred years ago

wow, you are quite old to remember

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

wow, you are quite old to remember

Yeah, I also remember the dark ages when they burnt gays at the stake and I even remember my young days when it was common for men to have sexual relations with men in the Roman times

I miss the old days...

[Millane]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

We're affected and formed by the society we live in though.

does this change the fact that morals are subjective?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

yes well i personally knew Sporus, the young boy that Nero had castrated, and then married him, so I am also fairly old by the years of men.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Millane

does this change the fact that morals are subjective?

It doesn't, however society has an impact on our (subjective) morality.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Millane

i disagree, i think morality is determined by each of us individually, it is not morality changes that you are describing but changes in laws.

As Jonathan says - our individual morality is formed by the society we live in. Even if you see there is nothing wrong with have sex with certain things - society has said that it is immoral.

As for what changes - it is ONLY through a collective change in society concenring a moral issue that will get a law change. A law will not be changed as long as society still accepts that moral standard. I do feel that eventually gays will be allowed to marry - but society has not come to a collective decision on that. Moral issues change slowly and first right now people support civil unions - but not marriage.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
I still say this is the wrong thread.

Not when people are saying that homosexual marriage is wrong on moral grounds though.

or when you say the following in defense of your position -


Quote:
I think it's obvious that how much one enjoys something is not an indicator as to whether something is moral or not. Some sadists have really enjoyed their cruelty, I'm sure. Thieves have greatly enjoyed their winnings. However, I think that in every society up to now, people have held to certain basic moral laws. Inked has posted some splendid stuff on this in other places, like I think in the "Why you believe what you believe" thread.

I wrote this in response to something Child of Ungoliant said. Child was not attacking any part of my position so far as I could see, though.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
[Statistics] show whether homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love, by measuring the two in comparison to one another. Such comparisons must take place, must be performed if we are going to implement laws that have the statement fundamental to them that heterosexual unions are the same as homosexual unions.


. I can't see why it's fundamental. Is there some kind of quiet agreement that all marriages must be alike? So what if there are differences? Every marriage is unique and that goes for heterosexual and homosexual ones. The same laws should apply for all marriages, no matter how they differ from one another.

If I married a baboon, that would also be unique . It would also be quite simply an utterly different kind of relationship, which shouldn't have all the same legal advantages and rights as a marriage between a man and a woman. If I "adopted" a lizard, should I have the right to the "parents only" lane? Different kinds of relationships require that different kinds of laws be made concerning them. If homosexuals are to be allowed to marry or have civil unions, there must be strong evidence that their relationships are equal to heterosexual ones and warrant that the same laws be extended to them.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If homosexuals are to be allowed to marry or have civil unions, there must be strong evidence that their relationships are equal to heterosexual ones and warrant that the same laws be extended to them.

Historically, in judicial decisions regarding human/human interaction, it goes the other way. There must be strong evidence that they are NOT equal to justify not extending the same laws. Different cases, of course, but typically in interactions between two citizens (which is what homosexual marriage would be - I'm not talking lizards or apes) the state has to show a compelling interest for inequality, rather than the individual showing a compelling interest for equality.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Historically, in judicial decisions regarding human/human interaction, it goes the other way. There must be strong evidence that they are NOT equal to justify not extending the same laws. Different cases, of course, but typically in interactions between two citizens (which is what homosexual marriage would be - I'm not talking lizards or apes) the state has to show a compelling interest for inequality, rather than the individual showing a compelling interest for equality.

I would be very pleased if the state did that kind of research on the issue. I'm not convinced that you're right on the judicial issue, however. I'll get back to you on the matter.

Lizards and apes are simply another step down the line. Perhaps another generation. Perhaps not.

I think a legal mess is already in store for us if we extend the marriage laws to homosexuals, simply because their relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships. Different relationships, as I already pointed out with my menagerie examples, require different laws. The same goes for humans. Female and male humans do have distinct differences from one another. One cannot replace a female with a male or a male with a female without creating a different type of relationship. These relationships must be treated differently from heterosexual relationships unless the evidence in favor of their being the same as heterosexual relationships outweighs the evidence against. It's going to end up a very messy business, on the legal front.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Lizards and apes are simply another step down the line. Perhaps another generation. Perhaps not.

I think a legal mess is already in store for us if we extend the marriage laws to homosexuals, simply because their relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships. Different relationships, as I already pointed out with my menagerie examples, require different laws.

See this is where you lose people. This is completely ridiciulous comparing homosexual marriage to marrying a frigging ape or lizard. Are you implying that homosexuals are really no different from wild animals and it's only a short step (as you claim) to allowing marriages between animals and humans? That is ridiculous and is precisely where you lose credibilty in your arguments.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

See this is where you lose people. This is completely ridiciulous comparing homosexual marriage to marrying a frigging ape or lizard. Are you implying that homosexuals are really no different from wild animals and it's only a short step (as you claim) to allowing marriages between animals and humans? That is ridiculous and is precisely where you lose credibilty in your arguments.

Well, that's good. I'm glad I didn't lose credibility earlier! Particularly since this seeming loss of credibility is in reality an error. I was not saying homosexuals are like wild animals. I definitely was not saying that. Or if you must have that I said it, at least grant me that I did not MEAN to say it! I was saying that if we allow marriage to be redefined at all, there's nothing to prevent it getting out of hand. Polygamy is doubtless going to be next. Other issues could very easily follow (like marriage to animals). Even if they are a generation or so away. A generation before now, this homosexual marriage thing would have been unheard of. The state (or judge, as it more often is ) will have made the break, saying that marriage is no longer defined in the way it always has been. Therefore the definition could go anywhere. I certainly think it would extend to polygamy. What else? Who knows?

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I was saying that if we allow marriage to be redefined at all, there's nothing to prevent it getting out of hand. Polygamy is doubtless going to be next. Other issues could very easily follow (like marriage to animals).

There's a problem with this reasoning: animals are not citizens. All arguments about homosexual marriage express the concept of marriage as a right held by citizens. If animals were to become citizens, I personally think they WOULD have the right to marry: but they are not going to become citizens in any conceivable timeframe. As noncitizens, they would therefore NOT have the right to marriage. This ignores all species-specificity in the definition of marriage (although I do personally believe such specificity should exist) and falls back solely on the legal terms.

As for polygamy, the state has already been determined to have a compelling interest to prevent it (this was decided in the latter half of the 19th century regarding Mormonism).

So I doubt very much if lizards, apes, or even polygamy are in the future for marriage.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, that's good. I'm glad I didn't lose credibility earlier! Particularly since this seeming loss of credibility is in reality an error. I was not saying homosexuals are like wild animals. I definitely was not saying that. Or if you must have that I said it, at least grant me that I did not MEAN to say it! I was saying that if we allow marriage to be redefined at all, there's nothing to prevent it getting out of hand. Polygamy is doubtless going to be next. Other issues could very easily follow (like marriage to animals). Even if they are a generation or so away. A generation before now, this homosexual marriage thing would have been unheard of. The state (or judge, as it more often is ) will have made the break, saying that marriage is no longer defined in the way it always has been. Therefore the definition could go anywhere. I certainly think it would extend to polygamy. What else? Who knows?

I disagree - I do not think it would go to polygamy. But even if it did - Utah used to allow polygamy and now nolonger does. Marriage could simply be defined as between TWO loving adults. But remember also - various states have different laws on when someone may get married, such as teenagers. I just think it's going out on the limb when homosexual marriage is said to be one step form allowing marriage between animals and that it will be a free for all. I may not support gay marriage at this time - but I have other reasons. It doesn't have to do with moral issues.