Detour: Point of View thread

One thing that both you, Daryl, and The E have not done is acknowledge that I and those like me have as much right to live as we would like as anyone else. You believe the changes need to be as you envision and everyone who disagrees can sod off.

Guess what? Its that attitude that makes me ambivalent to this sort of change. I don't trust you to consider my concerns even if I do believe gays can have whatever legal protections of a commuted relationship. Neither one of you have addressed the consequences of the changes you prescribe. That making the broad changes you doesire will have them. YOU are ok with those changes. The rest don't t matter. You would make changes to disrupt the lives of 98% of us for the benefit of a small portion of 2% that would take advantage of same sex unions.

Yup. I believe I will continue not trusting progressive liberals and oppose your initiatives on principle. I can't trust you guys to ever consider opposing concerns. On this point I believe we all can agree; neither side trusts the other.

PeterZ, Thanks for your PM, I'll answer here to save duplication.

I do acknowledge that you and those of similar mind have every right to live as you would like. As well I do respect both you and your opinions. I don't want you to sod off, as I do enjoy these discussions and respect your input. You have said separately that you won't participate further on this thread, and I agree that there is no real chance of either of us changing the other's opinion.

What I consider is the sticking point between our camps is your statement "You would make changes to disrupt the lives of 98% of us for the benefit of a small portion of 2% that would take advantage of same sex unions."

I'm obviously missing some thing that is obvious to you, but I have absolutely no idea how legalizing gay marriages would have any effect on you and yours at all.
If you do answer (and I understand if you don't) could you please tell us what the disruption is? If it offends your religious sensibilities or feelings I'm not significantly concerned, but if it affects you in any measurable material way then I'd understand your stance.

Incidentally it is not 98% to 2%, as the percentage of people with gay tendencies is higher than 2%. As well the percentage of non gay (like me) people, who have seen the injustice and want it corrected, is well over 50% in most places.

PeterZ wrote:One thing that both you, Daryl, and The E have not done is acknowledge that I and those like me have as much right to live as we would like as anyone else. You believe the changes need to be as you envision and everyone who disagrees can sod off.

Guess what? Its that attitude that makes me ambivalent to this sort of change. I don't trust you to consider my concerns even if I do believe gays can have whatever legal protections of a commuted relationship. Neither one of you have addressed the consequences of the changes you prescribe. That making the broad changes you doesire will have them. YOU are ok with those changes. The rest don't t matter. You would make changes to disrupt the lives of 98% of us for the benefit of a small portion of 2% that would take advantage of same sex unions.

Yup. I believe I will continue not trusting progressive liberals and oppose your initiatives on principle. I can't trust you guys to ever consider opposing concerns. On this point I believe we all can agree; neither side trusts the other.

PeterZ wrote:One thing that both you, Daryl, and The E have not done is acknowledge that I and those like me have as much right to live as we would like as anyone else. You believe the changes need to be as you envision and everyone who disagrees can sod off.

Sure you do. And allowing gays to marry who they want doesn't impact your ability to marry who you want in the slightest. Unless having equal rights for everybody is now a bad thing?

Guess what? Its that attitude that makes me ambivalent to this sort of change. I don't trust you to consider my concerns even if I do believe gays can have whatever legal protections of a commuted relationship. Neither one of you have addressed the consequences of the changes you prescribe.

Because you haven't told us what those consequences are!
We cannot address your concerns if all we know about them is that you have them.
The consequences we see from our POV are minimal, and only positive. Which is the way we (as neophiles) are wired. Now it is your turn, as a conservative, to tell us what we missed.

That making the broad changes you doesire will have them. YOU are ok with those changes. The rest don't t matter. You would make changes to disrupt the lives of 98% of us for the benefit of a small portion of 2% that would take advantage of same sex unions.

These statistics show that around 5% of the US population identify as LGBT. Please define how exactly allowing these people to marry and enjoy the same rights and priviledges heterosexual couples do disrupts anything.

Yup. I believe I will continue not trusting progressive liberals and oppose your initiatives on principle. I can't trust you guys to ever consider opposing concerns. On this point I believe we all can agree; neither side trusts the other.

I do trust conservatives to be conservative. I do trust them to see issues I might overlook. But that requires that you guys actually come to the table and have a discussion; blanket disapproval without any sort of good reasoning behind them (or without communicating that reasoning) is not productive.

The E wrote:

PeterZ wrote:One thing that both you, Daryl, and The E have not done is acknowledge that I and those like me have as much right to live as we would like as anyone else. You believe the changes need to be as you envision and everyone who disagrees can sod off.

Sure you do. And allowing gays to marry who they want doesn't impact your ability to marry who you want in the slightest. Unless having equal rights for everybody is now a bad thing?

Guess what? Its that attitude that makes me ambivalent to this sort of change. I don't trust you to consider my concerns even if I do believe gays can have whatever legal protections of a commuted relationship. Neither one of you have addressed the consequences of the changes you prescribe.

Because you haven't told us what those consequences are!
We cannot address your concerns if all we know about them is that you have them.
The consequences we see from our POV are minimal, and only positive. Which is the way we (as neophiles) are wired. Now it is your turn, as a conservative, to tell us what we missed.

That making the broad changes you doesire will have them. YOU are ok with those changes. The rest don't t matter. You would make changes to disrupt the lives of 98% of us for the benefit of a small portion of 2% that would take advantage of same sex unions.

These statistics show that around 5% of the US population identify as LGBT. Please define how exactly allowing these people to marry and enjoy the same rights and priviledges heterosexual couples do disrupts anything.

Yup. I believe I will continue not trusting progressive liberals and oppose your initiatives on principle. I can't trust you guys to ever consider opposing concerns. On this point I believe we all can agree; neither side trusts the other.

I do trust conservatives to be conservative. I do trust them to see issues I might overlook. But that requires that you guys actually come to the table and have a discussion; blanket disapproval without any sort of good reasoning behind them (or without communicating that reasoning) is not productive.

Marriage is equally available to all as it is. The right to marry IS equal. What you are calling for is redefining that right which is already equally available to all. The redefinition is being called for because some people don't like the current right. By redefining the right to marry, everyone will be effected. Please don't equate this to the 60s civil rights fight. Not the same at all. Anyone can sip of the drinking fountain of marriage or sit at its front. Whether we choose to or not is our choice and preference.

Concerns: As I have already written in prior posts

How will redefining marriage impact parental rights? Same sex marriage cannot produce offspring from within the marriage. Adoption and surrogacy will be used more frequently. Will this impact parental rights? Where will parental rights stem from? Will it remain primarily biological and genetic?

A homosexual parent leaves a heterosexual marriage and enters into a homosexual marriage while the ex-wife remains single. He has joint custody with the ex. Both he and his ex-wife die while the child is still a minor. Who has responsibility of the child? Are the next of kin grandparents or the man's spouse? If the spouse is considered the legal next of kin, what legal principle does that determination use? That legal relationships supersede biological ones? Not an unreasonable determination. Does that mean judges have more leeway to assert authority over parents and children than they do now?

Ok next. How will the redefinition be impacted by other laws? As an example, the Americans with Disabilities Act states that reasonable accommodation must be given to people with disabilities. If marriage is defined as a union between two people regardless of sex and same sex couples cannot have children, don't they suffer from a disability? Most couples who marry can have children. Those that can't then suffer from a disability. What reasonable accommodation must be given to same sex couples regarding rights to gain children and parental rights over children?

Next, Discrimination. There is talk about the IRS revoking the tax exempt status of churches who refuse to perform gay marriages. If they perform marriages at all and the definition of marriage changes, they must perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couple just like heterosexual couples or illegally discriminate. How much further will the government intrude in matters of conscience?

These issues arise because no distinction is made between a long term relationship between a man and a woman and between a same sex couple. The two relationships are different because men and women are different. Asserting men and women are identical is ludicrous. Different possibilities arise from the different unions. Those possibilities must be recognized or all sorts of issues arise that impact everone.

I do have good reasons for my concerns. My lack of trust stems from progressive liberals refusing to stop any sort of change. Eventually you will change the very social contract that binds all Americans; our Constitution. Obama says it plain enough. He and those that believe as he does will fundamentally transform America. Into what? Into a nation where our social contract is not one defined by negative rights? That means he wishes government to grant positive rights, yes? If the US is transformed in this way, then that means American sovereignty will no longer reside in the individual citizen but the federal government.

So, no. I will not support change on a progressive liberal's whim or claim. Support it and show me the limiting principles limiting the proposed change's impact on the rest of us. You want change, you justify it.

PeterZ wrote:Marriage is equally available to all as it is. The right to marry IS equal. What you are calling for is redefining that right which is already equally available to all. The redefinition is being called for because some people don't like the current right. By redefining the right to marry, everyone will be effected. Please don't equate this to the 60s civil rights fight. Not the same at all. Anyone can sip of the drinking fountain of marriage or sit at its front. Whether we choose to or not is our choice and preference.

The right to interracial marriage did not exist in some states until Loving vs Virginia.

Concerns: As I have already written in prior posts

How will redefining marriage impact parental rights? Same sex marriage cannot produce offspring from within the marriage. Adoption and surrogacy will be used more frequently. Will this impact parental rights? Where will parental rights stem from? Will it remain primarily biological and genetic?

A homosexual parent leaves a heterosexual marriage and enters into a homosexual marriage while the ex-wife remains single. He has joint custody with the ex. Both he and his ex-wife die while the child is still a minor. Who has responsibility of the child, are the next of kin grandparents or the man's spouse? If the spouse is considered the legal next of kin, what legal principle does that determination use? That legal relationships supersede biological ones? Not an unreasonable determination. Does that mean judges have more leeway to assert authority over parents and children than they do now?

Ok next. How will the redefinition be impacted by other laws? The Americans with Disabilities Act states that reasonable accommodation must be given to people with disabilities. If marriage is defined as a union between two people regardless of sex and same sex couples cannot have children, don't they suffer from a disability? Most couples who marry can have children. Those that can't then suffer from a disability. What reasonable accommodation must be given to same sex couples regarding rights to gain children and parental rights over children?

None of this is new territory. All of these questions equally apply to heterosexual couples who are infertile and/or adopt. These have been long since answered in law.

As for your last point, does the ADA make any accomodations for infertile heterosexual couples? If so (which I doubt) the same accomadations would be in place. If not, then no.

I'm leaving your last point to those more familiar with US law on the subject.

Eyal wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Marriage is equally available to all as it is. The right to marry IS equal. What you are calling for is redefining that right which is already equally available to all. The redefinition is being called for because some people don't like the current right. By redefining the right to marry, everyone will be effected. Please don't equate this to the 60s civil rights fight. Not the same at all. Anyone can sip of the drinking fountain of marriage or sit at its front. Whether we choose to or not is our choice and preference.

The right to interracial marriage did not exist in some states until Loving vs Virginia.

PeterZ wrote:Indeed so but the law as it exists today to available to all.

Concerns: As I have already written in prior posts

How will redefining marriage impact parental rights? Same sex marriage cannot produce offspring from within the marriage. Adoption and surrogacy will be used more frequently. Will this impact parental rights? Where will parental rights stem from? Will it remain primarily biological and genetic?

A homosexual parent leaves a heterosexual marriage and enters into a homosexual marriage while the ex-wife remains single. He has joint custody with the ex. Both he and his ex-wife die while the child is still a minor. Who has responsibility of the child, are the next of kin grandparents or the man's spouse? If the spouse is considered the legal next of kin, what legal principle does that determination use? That legal relationships supersede biological ones? Not an unreasonable determination. Does that mean judges have more leeway to assert authority over parents and children than they do now?

Ok next. How will the redefinition be impacted by other laws? The Americans with Disabilities Act states that reasonable accommodation must be given to people with disabilities. If marriage is defined as a union between two people regardless of sex and same sex couples cannot have children, don't they suffer from a disability? Most couples who marry can have children. Those that can't then suffer from a disability. What reasonable accommodation must be given to same sex couples regarding rights to gain children and parental rights over children?

None of this is new territory. All of these questions equally apply to heterosexual couples who are infertile and/or adopt. These have been long since answered in law.

As for your last point, does the ADA make any accomodations for infertile heterosexual couples? If so (which I doubt) the same accomadations would be in place. If not, then no.

I'm leaving your last point to those more familiar with US law on the subject.

Yet gay same sex couples are a protected class. Heterosexual infertile couples are not, at least with respect to these subjects. The combination of being a protected class and potentially viewed as disabled in relation to adoption, surrogacy and parental rights add a degree of complexity that did not exist prior to redefining marriage. What new principle will be in play to address those differences?

PeterZ wrote:How will redefining marriage impact parental rights? Same sex marriage cannot produce offspring from within the marriage. Adoption and surrogacy will be used more frequently. Will this impact parental rights? Where will parental rights stem from? Will it remain primarily biological and genetic?

As pointed out, there already are legal frameworks available for couples raising children not or not completely related to them biologically. This is a non-issue.

A homosexual parent leaves a heterosexual marriage and enters into a homosexual marriage while the ex-wife remains single. He has joint custody with the ex. Both he and his ex-wife die while the child is still a minor. Who has responsibility of the child? Are the next of kin grandparents or the man's spouse? If the spouse is considered the legal next of kin, what legal principle does that determination use? That legal relationships supersede biological ones? Not an unreasonable determination. Does that mean judges have more leeway to assert authority over parents and children than they do now?

Now strike the "homosexual" and "heterosexual" from this constructed case of yours and ask again. Because those concerns are exactly the same no matter the sexual preferences of the adults involved.

In other words, raising this as a concern against gay marriage makes little sense.

Ok next. How will the redefinition be impacted by other laws? As an example, the Americans with Disabilities Act states that reasonable accommodation must be given to people with disabilities. If marriage is defined as a union between two people regardless of sex and same sex couples cannot have children, don't they suffer from a disability? Most couples who marry can have children. Those that can't then suffer from a disability. What reasonable accommodation must be given to same sex couples regarding rights to gain children and parental rights over children?

Oh hey, a slippery-slope argument! Haven't had those in a while.
Speaking off, what special provisions are there for infertile couples right now? Because once again, this seems like an "equal rights for everyone seen as kinda bad" thing.

Next, Discrimination. There is talk about the IRS revoking the tax exempt status of churches who refuse to perform gay marriages. If they perform marriages at all and the definition of marriage changes, they must perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couple just like heterosexual couples or illegally discriminate. How much further will the government intrude in matters of conscience?

This is such a deeply american-conservative issue that I am not going to comment on it. Personally, I am of the opinion that tax agencies have no business enforcing social agendas.

These issues arise because no distinction is made between a long term relationship between a man and a woman and between a same sex couple. The two relationships are different because men and women are different. Asserting men and women are identical is ludicrous. Different possibilities arise from the different unions. Those possibilities must be recognized or all sorts of issues arise that impact everone.

But apart from the inability to have children without outside assistance, there is no difference.

I do have good reasons for my concerns. My lack of trust stems from progressive liberals refusing to stop any sort of change. Eventually you will change the very social contract that binds all Americans; our Constitution. Obama says it plain enough. He and those that believe as he does will fundamentally transform America. Into what? Into a nation where our social contract is not one defined by negative rights? That means he wishes government to grant positive rights, yes? If the US is transformed in this way, then that means American sovereignty will no longer reside in the individual citizen but the federal government.

And again with the slippery slope! I mean, the reverse will also happen, or are you going to claim that the fundamentalist christians which make the big waves in conservative american circles are any better at not using governmental interference to get their way? We've already seen the US slide backwards in scientific literacy because of conservatives not believing in evolution and forcing everyone to conform to their idiocy, after all.

So, no. I will not support change on a progressive liberal's whim or claim. Support it and show me the limiting principles limiting the proposed change's impact on the rest of us. You want change, you justify it.

Have any of the problems you have lined out been observed to be actual, real life concerns in any of the states world-wide that have allowed gay marriage?

As I said E, I don't trust your assertions. The War on Poverty brought more poverty and destroyed the black family. We have more government to try to fix what increased government involvement in everyday life brought about to begin with. The non issues you dismiss so cavalierly are but a ruling away by some judge somewhere to becoming an issue. Will someone use arguments to bring the ADA into play in the right settings or employ the protected status of gays to bear in a custody dispute? Sure they will. Can they win that argument, maybe.

By creating a new legal relationship, the old one and all the precedent remains intact. The new relationship is viewed separately and new precedent is set addressing the differences between the two relationships. If the old definition is redefined, all that precedent must be reviewed because the circumstances that apply are different.

In any case, none of this goes to the point on why redefining marriage is the only solution to address recognizing same sex unions?

PeterZ wrote: Will someone use arguments to bring the ADA into play in the right settings or employ the protected status of gays to bear in a custody dispute?

Can you give an example of how the ADA might conceivably be used by gay couples in a custody dispute? Because I can't see it. Given the ways that "disabilities" are defined in the ADA you're going to face a big uphill struggle trying to argue that infertility is a disability in its context. Besides that, gays' status as a protected class seems to me to be irrelevant; if you're arguing they have a disability then they're a protected class in the context of the ADA, they can't be "double protected"; if you're not using the ADA then there's no case.

In any case, none of this goes to the point on why redefining marriage is the only solution to address recognizing same sex unions?

Which alternatives do you propose?

Eyal wrote:

PeterZ wrote: Will someone use arguments to bring the ADA into play in the right settings or employ the protected status of gays to bear in a custody dispute?

Can you give an example of how the ADA might conceivably be used by gay couples in a custody dispute? Because I can't see it. Given the ways that "disabilities" are defined in the ADA you're going to face a big uphill struggle trying to argue that infertility is a disability in its context. Besides that, gays' status as a protected class seems to me to be irrelevant; if you're arguing they have a disability then they're a protected class in the context of the ADA, they can't be "double protected"; if you're not using the ADA then there's no case.

In any case, none of this goes to the point on why redefining marriage is the only solution to address recognizing same sex unions?

Which alternatives do you propose?

I will admit, Eyal, that I can't envision the exact way this might happen. That doesn't mean that it will not. The right to privacy was inferred in the Constitution to support the Roe v Wade decision. Might similar inference be used with respect to disputes regarding same sex marriages? I fear it might. As I said the left has voiced their desire to fundamentally transform America. I am not interested in any transformation they are happy with.

I believe that a same sex civil union would work. It doesn't matter if you are gay or strait. If you want to engage in a long term same sex union, this relationship will provide the rights and responsibilities that apply.