Birmingham Discussion Thread

[Sulley]

I'm referring to your argument where you allude that homosexuality is indeed a choice (read it and it is very apparent), not marriage.

[Blazer85]

Originally Posted by Sulley

I'm referring to your argument where you allude that homosexuality is indeed a choice (read it and it is very apparent), not marriage.

I didnt explicitly say or imply anything about homosexuality. The entire argument is based on the principle that there are a large number of laws and regulations restricting people on the basis of age, experience, etc. which many people have no problem with. You're telling me it's ok for young people to be old enough to fight and die in wars, but yet not have the right to smoke, drink, drive a rental car, etc etc?

[dfwtiger]

Originally Posted by Blazer85

No no... it's not about homosexuality being a choice. It's about marriage being a choice. There's a big difference. What's more. You call those things "simple." How is it anymore simple? You're saying the rights of underage drinkers, smokers, drivers, etc. are less important or "simple?" What happened to this idea of equality for "all citizens?"

A civil union is a contract between two individuals...a union that does not involve religion or GOD. I would equate a civil union to a joint checking account....owning property together (two or more names on a deed)...and the list goes on. In the case of "joint" agreements, the law is blind to gender. In the case of a civil union....it now has eyes. To restrict a marriage is one thing. As a christian, marriage is an issue between God and the couple making the committment....the paper work and church service is only a way to let the physical world know your intentions and ultimate decision.

A civil union is something different. It does afford basic rights over property and money that is jointly held between two individuals...right afforded to hetrosexual couples but not to homosexuals. A good example of rights not afforded to part of our population is the basic human right to make joint decisions with a partner..EXAMPLE...in the case of hospitalization...visitation rights...death..and so on. If anyone believes that the afore mentioned cases are not basic rights afforded to all I would be interested in reading your comments.

Cheers

[Newnan]

what is Birminghams gay population like?

[Dystopos]

Originally Posted by Blazer85

No, but other age requirements are equally bogus. I've met a number of responsible folks that drink... some over 21, some under. But they've established an age. You dont see the majority of folks under 21 up in arms because they are treated as "second-class" citizens up until they're 21 and can join the rest of the social club that is drinking.

Same can be said of smoking ages and legal ages for buying/viewing pornography. How is the mind of a 17.5 year old any more corruptable than an 18 year old? Again, most seem perfectly fine with all of these other restrictions pertaining to age.

What about the fact heterosexual siblings cant marry... or better yet... why not heterosexual first cousins? Or if it's my "right" to have one wife, why is not my right to have another if she consents?

If I want to put harmful chemicals in my body for the sake of a high, who is the government to say I cant do it? It's my body.

If I want to bring a weapon onto a plane, it's my right, isnt it? Assuming I wont use it of course... the moment I take a boxcutter out and slice someone it becomes illegal, but otherwise I can carry it onto the plane, right?

A number of you will think these are silly and exaggerated cases of something you see as so simple. Society and the American government established these laws with three basic principles in mind: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Life = Your right to live without someone taking it. Liberty = You will be no slave to the government and you may live your life as you wish (within the constraints of the laws of the land). Pursuit of Happiness = You may pursue happiness, but no *guarantee* of finding that happiness. People seem to think they can just do whatever they want. "As long as I'm not hurting anyone directly, I can just do what I want. It's my right isnt it?" No... actually it's not. I cant just be a pothead and dope up on illegal drugs just because I want to. No, I cant bring a weapon onto a plane just because it's my right to bear arms.

The phrase is: "man is entitled to certain inalienable rights"... the key word being *certain*. There are limits folks. And to suggest that we should have complete freedom is ridiculous. Freedom, within our constitution, has built in limits. Always has and always will... because frankly, it has to. Anything else would be anarchy. If there were no limits to freedom, we'd have about the shortest constitution in the history of the world: "Do whatever you want. We dont care what you do to yourself as long as you dont kill or harm someone else. The end."

I'll try to keep it short:
1. Yes, the drinking age and pornography and drug laws are pretty arbitrary. I am not a strong supporter of criminalization when social pressure is probably more appropriate. In places where these things are a healthy part of society, social codes limit the harm they can do. I'm not sure our society would adapt well to liberalizing these substances, but then again, why is it congress' burden to protect us from ourselves or to raise our kids right? Are we so stupid and inept?
2. There are contexts in which social pressures have not demonstrated that they alone can protect the public interest. For example, when siblings start bearing children, innocent lives are affected. Social pressures are probably the strongest means of preventing this public health problem from growing, but it is within my concept of public interest that no marriage license be granted to siblings seeking a union. I am not convinced that same-sex partners seeking marriage pose any such risk to the public.
3. I am not suggesting anarchy. I am suggesting that rights should be constrained only with reluctance and only after demonstrating the necessity of doing so in order to preserve the public welfare. If airlines competed with each other not only on cost and service, but also on security, some people might choose to save a buck by going with "No-Scan Airlines", but the harm that could result would affect more than the paying passengers, thus, you have a legitimate public interest in keeping weapons out of the cabins on commercial flights. (In contexts where the risk is low; military flights for example; there is no reason for such a restriction).

[Sulley]

Originally Posted by Blazer85

I didnt explicitly say or imply anything about homosexuality. The entire argument is based on the principle that there are a large number of laws and regulations restricting people on the basis of age, experience, etc. which many people have no problem with. You're telling me it's ok for young people to be old enough to fight and die in wars, but yet not have the right to smoke, drink, drive a rental car, etc etc?

Personally, I find it horrible, but you have to remember, the legal drinking age in the United States WAS 18 until 1984. Also, it's legal in New York to rent a car at 18, but hey, we're not the South

[Blazer85]

The issue does not involve civil unions as far as I know. This is a ban against "marriage"... or at least that's how it's listed on the ballots. I know that there's a difference in marriage and a civil union. Society has equated the two, generally speaking, because they normally ARE one in the same for most couples.

I will point to you one problem with this. If you legalize same-sex marriage, what does that say to those that desire other non-traditional unions? Where does it stop? Time and time again when I raise the argument, I always hear "you're just exaggerating... that's not even realistic." Wrong. Some of the polygamists in Utah are already pointing to same-sex marriage as legal support for that type of union. Other non-traditional unions could (and likely would) follow. Is polygamy alright? That's not rhetorical. I'd like to know from those defending same-sex marriage. If it came up on the ballots, would you support A) polygamy and/or B) incest?

[Sulley]

But isn't that a classic case of a "slippery slope" argument?

Keep in mind, in the jurisdictions that have afforded legal recognition of same-sex unions, the dire consequences foretold by opponents have not come to pass. Have you been to Canada recently? Or the Netherlands?

I live right across from Canada and can tell you that they are doing just fine -- much better than this side of the border, in fact.

[Sulley]

And to address your questions/concerns:

As for incest, allowing same-sex couples to marry does not alter the restriction on consanguineous relationships.

In addition, the legalization of allowing same-sex couples to marry does not necessarily change the restriction on the number of people who may contract a marriage. Furthermore, because of the reciprocal nature of many spousal rights and responsibilities, it would not be possible to give three-person groups identical rights and responsibilities as two-person groups. For example, if a government gives medical coverage to spouses of service members, then a service member with thirty spouses would either receive benefits far more valuable than one with only one spouse would, or not all that service member's spouses would receive coverage. Thus, polygamy could present far different legal ramifications.

Lastly, one fundamental problem for any law banning same-sex marriage is defining the terms "man" and "woman." If defined genetically, both transsexuals and intersexed individuals would be prohibited from marrying partners of the "opposite" sex and therefore from heterosexual marriage.

Have you considered this? Not everything is so black and white -- Alabamians seem to have trouble grasping this concept.

[Blazer85]

Originally Posted by Sulley

But isn't that a classic case of a "slippery slope" argument?

Keep in mind, in the jurisdictions that have afforded legal recognition of same-sex unions, the dire consequences foretold by opponents have not come to pass. Have you been to Canada recently? Or the Netherlands?

I live right across from Canada and can tell you that they are doing just fine -- much better than this side of the border, in fact.

Not been to Canada, but I have been to the Netherlands. Drugs are a rampant problem as is prostitution, and thus sexually transmitted diseases.

Here's a quote from a Canadian-based newspaper:

Until the late 1980s, marriage was a flourishing institution in the Netherlands. The number of marriages was high. And the number of divorces and illegitimate births were relatively low compared to other Western countries.

It seems, however, that legal and social experiments in the 1990s had an adverse effect on the reputation of humankind's most important institution.

Over the past 15 years, the number of marriages has declined substantially, both in absolute and in relative terms. In 1990, 95,000 marriages were solemnized, which translates to 6.4 marriages per 1,000 inhabitants. By 2003, this number had dropped to 82,000, or 5.1 marriages per 1,000.

This same period also witnessed a spectacular rise in the number of illegitimate births. In 1989, one in 10 children were born out of wedlock. By 2003, that number had risen to almost one in three. The number of people who have never married grew by more than 850,000, from 6.5 million in 1990 to 7.3 million in 2003. It seems the Dutch increasingly regard marriage as irrelevant to their own lives and that of their offspring.

[Sulley]

Originally Posted by Blazer85

Not been to Canada, but I have been to the Netherlands. Drugs are a rampant problem as is prostitution, and thus sexually transmitted diseases.

And this relates to same-sex issue how? You said that same-sex marriage would lead to the legalization of incest and polygamy, not drug problems. I personally have never touched a cigarette, let alone an illicit substance.

[Blazer85]

Originally Posted by Sulley

And this relates to same-sex issue how? You said that same-sex marriage would lead to the legalization of incest and polygamy, not drug problems. I personally have never touched a cigarette, let alone an illicit substance.

How many mormans and polygamist-based religions are in Canada or the Netherlands? Answer: Very few, if any. I'm not speaking theoretically here. Some polygamists in Utah ARE currently trying to use same-sex marriage (such as in Massachussetts) as a legal defense.

[pkp]

Originally Posted by dfwtiger

If marriage is sacred, I wish they had also added a provision saying that it is illegal to get a divorce.

I agree - at least second marriages. Assumably, the only real support for not allowing gays to marry is biblical. So, if that's the reasoning, let's back it up with something the Bible is very clear on - re-marriage after divorce. Of course, since this would directly affect many, many of the people who are fighting gay marriage, this would never get any support.

On another note, it seems that much of the opposition to gay marriage is saying that, because the majority of the population is against gay marriage, judges should support the will of the people and support laws banning it. Is it just me, or isn't the government there to support the country's minorities since they obviously won't be able to do it through any sort of legislation passed by a majority vote. And, I'm pretty sure there have been a few instances throughout history where the majortiy supported something that was not right or just, hmmm, maybe the apartheid, holocaust, segregation, etc... Wow, since the majority of these nation's people supported these practices, they must be right.

As a religous practicing Chrisitian, do I support gay marriage in my Church? Its irrelevant! As long as marriage is a legal institution in this country, I don't see how the government can decide who can and can't marry. Now, how about we abolish it as a legally binding contractual agreement? That would certainly solve a lot of problems - food for thought...

[Sulley]

Drugs are a rampant problem as is prostitution, and thus sexually transmitted diseases.

BTW, the STD rate AND teen pregnancy rate in the Netherlands is much lower than in the US. Check it:

Teen Pregnancy Rates:

93.0 per 1000 in the United States (85.8/1000 in 1996)3
62.6 per 1000 in England and Wales, and
42.7 per 1000 in Canada
15.1 per 1000 in Belgium
8.5 per 1000 in the Netherlands

Here's some more interesting information. Wow, I guess we're all slutty in the US, eh?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_teens.html

[pkp]

Even if the purported "fact" about marriage in Europe were true, where is the evidence that this has anything to do with gays being allowed to marry. I would imagine the turn toward secularism would explain most of the non-married couples and children born out of wedlock. Do I think this is a problem - yes - as the majority of the Europeans in questions have turned their back on their faith. But to blame it on permitting gay marriage - there is absolutley no support for that.

[Dystopos]

Originally Posted by Blazer85

The issue does not involve civil unions as far as I know. This is a ban against "marriage"... or at least that's how it's listed on the ballots. I know that there's a difference in marriage and a civil union. Society has equated the two, generally speaking, because they normally ARE one in the same for most couples.

There is no recognition of "civil unions" whatsoever in Alabama. A marriage, whether conducted by a licensed minister or by a civil authority is legally "a marriage". There is no comparable legal status for those not legally recognized as married. It would be interesting to see that if a law were proposed to allow for civil unions, whether it could be struck down by virtue of this amendment. (And further, whether the state would find an interest in specifying the gender of persons entering into a business partnership...)

[Blazer85]

Originally Posted by Sulley

BTW, the STD rate AND teen pregnancy rate in the Netherlands is much lower than in the US. Check it:

Teen Pregnancy Rates:

93.0 per 1000 in the United States (85.8/1000 in 1996)3
62.6 per 1000 in England and Wales, and
42.7 per 1000 in Canada
15.1 per 1000 in Belgium
8.5 per 1000 in the Netherlands

Here's some more interesting information. Wow, I guess we're all slutty in the US, eh?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_teens.html

Does that include abortions? I dont believe it does and abortion is much more readily available and socially acceptable in Europe.

[pkp]

Originally Posted by Blazer85

Does that include abortions? I dont believe it does and abortion is much more readily available and socially acceptable in Europe.

That is a TOTALLY different issue.

For one thing, I would imagine as married gay couples (most of whom cannot conceive) want children, adoption rates would rise. But you're right, all the pregnant gay dudes will probably be aborting babies left and right.

Bottom line, abortion deals with a third party life (if you beleive that a "fetus" is in fact a baby) - not a decision between two consenting adults.

[Blazer85]

Originally Posted by pkp

That is a TOTALLY different issue.

For one thing, I would imagine as married gay couples (most of whom cannot conceive) want children, adoption rates would rise. But you're right, all the pregnant gay dudes will probably be aborting babies left and right.

Bottom line, abortion deals with a third party life (if you beleive that a "fetus" is in fact a baby) - not a decision between two consenting adults.

Notice I didnt bring up teen pregnancy rates as support of anything.

[pkp]

Other than the fact they were wrong, why bring it up?