If gays marry, churches could suffer

[DanKroh 11]

Barry writes: "Havent most of the differences in issues between political parties come down to a battle of values?"

 

Actually, I don't think the values of the opposing parties differ all that much. I think it really comes down to the willingness to impose those values on other people or to codify them into our laws.

 

In a different discussion, Ed and I actually agreed on a pretty comprehensive list of what we considered "family values". I think if you and I started comparing point by point the things we think are important, and how we would like to see our children raised, and how we believe we should live our lives, they would probably be pretty close.

 

However, some people believe that they have the right to impose those values on others, and some people believe everyone should be able to chose for themselves (given the caveat that their choices do not harm others). Unfortunately, in that difference, compromise doesn't seem to be very likely, if possible at all.

 

Here's the way I see it. If any of the opponents of same-sex marriage can state for me one, just one, actually, practical way that allowing gays to marry will impact their personal lives, my mind might be changed. Or at least it would certainly give me something to think about. But instead, they come up with arguments about how it's unnatural, how it's immoral, how its a slippery slope that is going to destroy the marriages of others, the family, and yea, verily, society itself. That kind of hyperbole doesn't impress me. I guess I'm just too much of a practical thinker. Show me how it will have a tanglible impact on the lives of others, and then I might be swayed.

[evmori 11]

Completely wrong. Public schools aren't private organizations.

 

And this violates what?

 

And I'll ask again, what rights of yours are being violated, Merlyn? And why won't you stand 100% behind the membership numbers of the groups you belong to?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

[BrentAllen 10]

Dan,

It is the slippery slope that is the problem. If same-sex marriages are allowed, how do you write the definition of marriage? Is it just two people who love each other? If we allow that, then how can you prevent incest? If they love each other, then how can you discriminate against them? How about more than one wife or partner? If they love each other, are you going to discriminate against them? What about the 40 year old guy who falls in love with the 14 year old girl? If you say she is too young, you are still discriminating - like it or not. So please don't give me "discrimination is wrong" because I can stand that argument on its ear.

 

How does a 14 year old marrying someone much older hurt my marriage? Give me one good, solid reason how that hurts or damages my marriage. Why should we prevent it?

 

How does a brother and sister getting married hurt my marriage? If they say they don't want to have kids, how is that different from a same-sex marriage where the partners doesn't want to have kids? How are they hurting anyone? What gives you the right to discriminate against them? What if they are two brothers who want to get married?

 

If someone wants to marry their pet, how does that hurt my marriage? Give me an argument as to why that shouldn't be allowed. Just one good reason how someone marrying their pet, which they love, in their own home - hurts my marriage?

 

Now substitute illegal drugs - how does someone doing lines of cocain in their home affect me? Why shouldn't we allow that? I saw where some teenager wanted to sell themselves as a sex slave - how does that affect me? If he/she is not hurting someone else, then why not allow it?

 

Yes, it is a slippery slope that I don't care to step out on. Remember, discrimination in ANY form is wrong to some, so if you use that as your argument, be ready for a long fall.

[DanKroh 11]

BrentAllen,

 

I thought it was obvious that same-sex marriage fulfilled the conditions of not harming either of the people involved, and that both people involved were mentally capable of giving consent.

 

All of the examples on your slippery slope involve either something that harms the people involved, or someone who is not capable of giving consent (and that includes the 14 y.o., since they are not mentally mature enough to give consent).

 

The only one that doesn't automatically imply harm is the polygamy example, although in traditionally examples of polygamy (which were really almost exclusively polygyny), the women were generally harmed because they were treated like chattel. However, my personal opinion of polygamy is that if all partners are entering into it on equal footing, and all consent to the arrangement (and it includes polyandry as an option as well as polygyny), it is none of my business. While there are real economic and logistical problems with legalizing polygamous marriages in this country, the arrangement has worked in other cultures for centuries.

 

So again, given that same-sex marriage harms NO ONE, and is consented to by two adults, how does it affect you?

[DanKroh 11]

Brent, to put it another way, I see the purpose of laws prohibiting something as protective. If we have a law, it is because it is protecting someone from harm or the potential for harm (sometimes even from self-inflicted harm). Exactly who is being harmed by same-sex marriges?

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I see the question of same sex marriage coming down to a question of why do we have laws anyway? I see laws as the rules that a society constructs to protect the members of that society. Since laws are supposed to be absolute (sic!), meaning they apply to everyone, sometimes laws have negative consequences for a particular situation even though it may over all be good,

 

As a society, we have determined that we will protect our children. It wasnt always that way, child labor laws are a rather recent innovation when you consider the entire history of the industrial revolution. As a society we protect our youth by many ways, we require babies to be placed in appropriate auto seats. We dont allow the young to purchase alcohol or tobacco products or have a drivers license until they reach a certain age. We require that they attend school to a certain age. All of these laws can be seen as a type of discrimination, but our society has said that this is a good and correct discrimination. ]

 

The prohibition against incest, as I have understood it, is as much a health issue as an ick issue. Most often incest involves a minor and an adult and we have already said that child are a protected class of people. But what happens when the child becomes an adult? At 21 would a daughter marry her father? Again, getting past the ick issue there is the question of what such events would do to the gene pool and then consider the likelihood of birth defects and we prohibit it as a culture. Wasnt always this way, many royal families in Europe had quite a bit of family members marrying each other usually to eventual detriment.

 

The question polygamy is interesting; in the most recent past the part of American Society that had the most recent brush with this is the LDS church. And why did this occur? It wasnt because Joseph Smith or Brigham Young thought multiple wives were a good thing, the problem was that because of religious intolerance many LDS males were being lynched, murdered and otherwise made dead. This left a large portion of their community females without a male and this was clearly a threat to the continued existence of their way of life. So polygamy was allowed, even to the point of being encouraged because with the deaths of males, more children were needed to repopulate the ranks. Once religious attitudes cooled a bit, the focus on polygamy was relaxed until now where it is prohibited by the mainstream LDS hierarchy. Will circumstances ever bring up the question of polygamy again either for a segment of the population or for society as a whole? I have no idea. In the future a mysterious space borne virus may sterilize all but the most resistant 20 percent of males who may be charged with the job of producing enough offspring to keep the society viable, who know what the future could bring?

 

The 40 year old marrying the 14 year old doesnt work because of the existing laws covering marriage, but I need some help here, how old was Jerry Lee Lewiss wife when they got married? And wasnt it a legal marriage because they had parental consent? And what is the legal age at which you can married in your state, with parental consent and without? I know it varies quite a bit

 

Illegal drugs are another story. The reason why drugs are illegal is because of their detrimental effects on society. We all know about the pause that refreshes. Originally Coca Cola, of course refreshed, it had cocaine in it, why wouldnt it refresh? But we as a society saw the effects and said we wont have such a material legally available to members of our society. Alcohol is sorta the same way. When I was a youth there was not much of a stigma on drunk driving, people didnt talk about it much. That has changed. When I was a youth just about every adult I knew smoked, today just about every adult I know wants to tell children about the hazards of smoking and smoking in airports, restaurants, etc. is now illegal.

 

Which finally brings us to the topic of gay marriage. I guess I am not sure what the resistance is. Gay couple have existed for quite a long time. Not having gay marriage will not stop same sex couples so whats the problem? Two adults living together want their union blessed? Go for it, make it legal, let the gay community enjoy the world of divorce as well as the straight. Religions wont have to marry same sex couples, its up to them to set the rules and then members of that church get to decide to vote with their feet if this makes a difference to them. How will society change if gay marriages are allowed?

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed writes, replying to me:

Completely wrong. Public schools aren't private organizations.

 

And this violates what?

 

Ed, the BSA can exclude atheists because it's a private organization; public schools aren't private organizations, and they can't run youth groups that exclude atheists.

 

And I'll ask again, what rights of yours are being violated, Merlyn?

 

Since I currently don't attend a public school that charters a BSA unit, I would only have standing as a taxpayer funding a public school that violates the law, which would not fall under a rights violation. However, any atheist student of a public school that charters a BSA unit and that rejects that student based on their religious views has had his or her first amendment rights violated.

 

And why won't you stand 100% behind the membership numbers of the groups you belong to?

 

Who says I don't? The Firesign Theatre has four members - I stand behind the fact that they DO have four members. I don't know how many members Scouting For All has, and last I heard the ACLU had a total membership in the neighborhood of 400,000.

 

[evmori 11]

Ed, the BSA can exclude atheists because it's a private organization; public schools aren't private organizations, and they can't run youth groups that exclude atheists.

 

Why can't they? What law are they violating? Why not exclude Girl Scouts since they only accept girls as members?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[stlscouter 10]

Merlyn

 

As a regional director of SFA your name must appear on the 501c3 documents and threfore those submitted federal documents claim membership of_______ and you "attested" that these numbers were correct. I'm sure you wouldn't mind if your oganization underwent the same scutiny by outside auditors as the BSA. BTW, if inclusion is one of the goals of SFA why the "cease and desist order" against SFA.com?

 

Your 4 person group does public performances-does your group ensure that all of the public accomodation laws are followed in that venue-handicap accessability, potty parity etc? Has your 4 person group ever discriminated against a paying customer by giving away free tickets to special folks while others have to pay? Do you discriminare against people under 21 in ticket sales (perhaps liquor sales)? Do you provide a sign person for the hearing impaired?

 

 

Merlyn, did you know that the public schools discriminate on a ongoing basis by not providing educational opportunities for those under a certain age and those over a certain age? Age discrimination I would say. Did you know that the federal free lunch programs discriminate against people that have too much income? Did you know that public schools provide more resources for "special learners" than they provide for non-special learners? Why no rants against the public schools for these real inequities.

[BrentAllen 10]

Sorry, Dan - you don't get off that easy.

How would a brother marrying a brother harm anyone? Please be specific.

 

What if a brother and sister wanted to marry, and wanted to adopt kids instead of having their own? How would that harm anyone? Please be specific.

 

In recent history, we have had a woman marry a dolphin, and someone else marry a cobra. If someone wants to marry their dog or cat, what is the harm? They are already living together, in some cases sharing the same bed. What harm would that do?

 

Who says a 14 year old is too young? I've known some very mature 14 year olds, and some very immature 20 year olds. To make a rule like that is pure age discrimination - it does not take into account the maturity of the individual. Are you telling me all people are the same maturity at 14? Other countries allow people to marry at that age - why can't we? If the two people love each other, what is the harm? Please be specific.

[SaintCad 10]

I was reading the back and forth between Merlyn and Ed and I have yet to see the real issue. Not everything in this country is discrimination. Someone can exclude you for eye color, height, age (under 40), and yes - sexual orientation. It is all about being in a protected class such as race, religion, sex (I know I'm missing a few) and NOT EVERY CHARACTERISTIC IS PROTECTED.

 

The other issue is, does the public school use funds to support the organization. If the public school simply gives the pack a place to meet than there is (probably) no problem with it. Even if they do fund the pack, they can exclude all they want based on sexual orientation. On the other hand, if as a public school they fund the pack AND exclude girls and atheists then they will probably lose in court and BSA would pull the charter.

 

The other question whether or not a government entity (city, state, federal) must give preference to groups they disagree with? Of course they don't! Governments have a long history of "legislation by pursestrings" - it is how they control policies that they have no jurisdiction over. The Feds do it all the time with the speed limit, education, etc. It is the "you do it our way or you get no money" strategy and it works. In fact, some argue that BSA does the same thing by caving in to the largest COs on the homosexuality issue.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

SaintCad writes:

I was reading the back and forth between Merlyn and Ed and I have yet to see the real issue. Not everything in this country is discrimination. Someone can exclude you for eye color, height, age (under 40), and yes - sexual orientation.

 

That's discrimination. You seem to think "discrimination" only means "illegal discrimination". Public schools discriminate quite legally on the basis of age, for example.

 

It is all about being in a protected class such as race, religion, sex (I know I'm missing a few) and NOT EVERY CHARACTERISTIC IS PROTECTED.

 

Quite correct.

 

The other issue is, does the public school use funds to support the organization. If the public school simply gives the pack a place to meet than there is (probably) no problem with it.

 

Not true at all. If the public school is the chartering organization, it's a school program, just like any other extracurricular school program, and like every other school program, students can't be excluded for being atheists.

[evmori 11]

Not true at all. If the public school is the chartering organization, it's a school program, just like any other extracurricular school program, and like every other school program, students can't be excluded for being atheists.

 

And the football team is also a school program. But they legally discriminate based of talent! And the band legally discriminates based on musical ability! And the BSA legally discriminates against atheists.

 

Legally.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed writes:

And the football team is also a school program. But they legally discriminate based of talent!

 

I would hope so, Ed.

 

Now, do you think the school's football team could legally exclude atheists?

 

And the band legally discriminates based on musical ability!

 

Possibly. Do you think the school band could legally exclude Jews?

 

And the BSA legally discriminates against atheists.

 

And public school programs can't discriminate against atheists. Just put the parts together, Ed.

 

[evmori 11]

SO it's OK for the football team to legally discriminate & it's OK for the band to legally discriminate but it's not OK for the BSA to legally discriminate even though all three are school groups? WOW! Isn't that discrimination?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10