What good moral reason is there for withholding a right to ‘gay marriage’?

I’m afraid John Waters will hate this since his pronouncement that there is no right to a gay marriage is being carried far and wide across the blogosphere, from Manchester to Atlantic uber-blogger Andrew Sullivan… It falls to Norm to dish the dirt on Mr Waters‘ rather imprecise grasp of logic:

Waters might like to consult Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It is, of course, true that many people never get married, but this no more shows that there is no human right to marry than the fact of there being large numbers of atheists shows there is no freedom of worship. The right to marry is not a claim right – such that you can insist on someone somewhere being obliged to marry you. But it is a liberty right; it entitles adults to get married if they can find willing partners. Gays are today claiming this right, and to deny its very existence is as feeble a form of opposition to their claim as you’ll find.

It reads like the latest instalment of Waters’ crusade for the introduction of the Un-Enlightenment? Norm’s definitive response is:

…the normative content of the right matters more than the meaning of a word, and the meanings of words evolve. You need a good moral reason to hold the meaning of ‘marriage’ fixed in the way John Waters wants to. What is that reason?

, ,

  • Pete Baker

    It would appear that John Waters is right on one aspect, that the arguments on this subject are replete with “disingenuous constructions and weasel words”.

    Waters is referring to religious ceremonies, whilst as he notes others correctly point to the legal differences

    “This is not about the right to marry,” O’Gorman said, but “about the right not to be discriminated against because of who you love. Failure to provide full marriage equality means that same-sex couples will not have full protection under the law.”

    As long as the legal sitaution is equal between civil partnerships and religious marriages then there isn’t a problem – as far as I’m concerned.

    But there should not be a legal requirement for supernaturalists to admit others, in their terms, to participate in their supernatural rites.

  • sj1

    The right to gay marriage is a fiction. Where does it come from? What are its origins? A right, like gay marriage is coming from culture, but a right should be above culture. If gay marriage were a right then all cultures would have it and they don’t, its a liberal invention. It’s certainly a negative right, not a positive one.

    It’s also an injustice, that gay marriages get the same tax breaks as hertosexual unions yet hertrosexual unions have demands made on them by children.

    Whats with all the gay threads?

  • sj1

    The most serious weakness of the Bill, he said, is its failure to provide for the children of gay couples

    eh? LOL Its a truism if your parents don’t have kids neither will you. The gay lobby is using adoptive children to further its own agenda.

    Poor form!

  • Pigeon Toes

    “It’s also an injustice, that gay marriages get the same tax breaks as hertosexual unions yet hertrosexual unions have demands made on them by children.

    Whats with all the gay threads?”

    I should imagine it’s because we now live in the 21st century, where the right to have a legally recognised partnership, does not depend on the ability to procreate with the partner of said legal union.

  • Dave

    Norman Geras alludes to Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but curiously doesn’t quote it:

    Article 16.

    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
    (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    It says nothing about the right of members of the same sex to marry each other, and inconveniently mentions the place of the family in society and the right of state to promote it. If human rights (as defined by the UDHR) puts the family unit (which is the married man and woman and their offspring) as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society” then states are quite right to protect that unit those who seek to undermine it, and to undermine human rights by so doing.

  • Dave

    Typo: “…protect that unit [i[from[/i] those who seek to undermine it…”

  • pete baker’s favourite troll

    I’m just glad that that Drummer character, whose hysterical egotistical nonsense ruined the other gay discussion, hasn’t yet found out about this thread.

  • Different Drummer

    You Spoke Too Soon!!

    Anyway Kind Admin what are all those (wouldbe) heterosexuals doing on this gay thread – don’t they have enough places to go to to.

    Oh well if you know a better hole to go to….

  • Pigeon Toes

    ” The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

    Define family then…

  • LURIG

    DD

    Are you trawling these boards just looking & searching for offence? Nothing wrong with gay rights & civil partnerships but most heterosexual people view marriage as the formal declaration of their love & intention to procreate. Gay people can’t do that within the boundaries of Biblical & State interpretations of marriage. It’s the fundamentalists within the gay community who are pushing this as many gay people are quite happy with formal recognition of their unions without religious marriage. You will find that 99% of the North’s Christian community, both Catholic & Protestant, are totally against gay marriage for the above reasons. Gay adoption is also something that many are opposed to. I am sorry if this offends you but we cannot go against nature’s laws and the natural acts of procreation. These constant demands and the intimidating push for them do a lot of damage to gay rights as do ‘Jesus is a Fag’ banners at Gay Pride.

  • LURIG

    Furthermore when is the state going to formally recognise CHRISTIAN rights? That community seems to be the most ridiculed, discriminated, lambasted people in these islands. Is it any wonder society is in immoral decadent decline when people have lost all focus on what is important in life? This surrender to hedonistic, boundary free, no laws living can be seen all around us. The family is the most important thing in a child’s upbringing and while it’s true that many families fall by the way side there are those within the senior British judiciary & family courts who state publically that the mother & father unit is the still the best way for children to be raised. John Ware of BBC’S Panorama presented a programme last week that factually proved this to be the case and he interviewed senior British judges who went on record to confirm this. Most youth crime in Britain is carried out by kids from broken, lone parent and single unit families.

  • Dave

    Pigeon Toes, define it or obfuscate it? It is self-defining within the three subsections of Article 16.

    Most children in Ireland are born within a marriage but only just (40% are not). 1 in 6 are born to cohabiters but most born outside of marriage have the State as the ‘breadwinner’ in the ‘family.’ Obviously, the definition of a family is changing as the State fails to protect traditional family as it existed in 1948, incentivising its demise via benefits and tax arrangements as well as buckling under pressure from vested interests who seek to promote their own agenda at the expense of society. However much it changes, it remains in the quoted human rights document as linked to marriage between a man and a woman.

    If the gay lobby want to claim that Article 16 applies to same sex ‘marriages’ then they will need to establish that the term “spouses” did not apply exclusively to marriage between a man and a woman at the time of the drafting of the UDHR in 1948. There was, of course, no such legal status in 1948, nor could same sex marriages serve the function of both partners ‘founding’ a family. Although, admittedly, founding could be held to imply methods of acquiring children other than procreation. However, the family that is referred to as “the [b]natural[/b] and fundamental group unit of society” and that is “entitled to protection by society and the State” has its legal basis in the marriage between a man and a woman – wherein they “found a family” within the legal protection accorded to their union.

    So, as this human right is “entitled to protection by society and the State” it is right that people should object to those who seek to attack the traditional family unit – such as the gay lobby and the liberal/left merchants – rather than simply rely on the State to protect human rights. The State is always run by self-serving hacks.

    The liberal/left view is that marriage should be gender-neutral and couple-cantered with no duty owed to the State (and, some would argue, not limited to couples either), whereas the traditional view is that marriage should be between a man and a woman and child-cantered, having the function of providing a stable environment in which to raise citizens of the State (and, more pertinently, where the child benefits from having both biological parents committed to his or her welfare). There are, of course, a lot of other issues to marriage such as property and inheritance rights, etc, that transcend any fashionable gay issues – not to mention that societal rights apply in marriage and outweigh any imagined individual rights, and that the State should not be promoting liberal agendas that require, for example, that taxpayers adopt the ‘daddy’ role in providing for the financial needs of unmarried mothers, et al.

  • Padraig

    What id s ‘right’ and what is its moral source?

    Just curious.

  • clmm8899
  • Comrade Stalin

    sj1:

    If gay marriage were a right then all cultures would have it and they don’t, its a liberal invention. It’s certainly a negative right, not a positive one.

    Yeah. Some cultures don’t have the right to trial by jury. I guess that’s a liberal invention. Some cultures don’t think that democracy is a good idea and that women are second class citizens. I guess those are liberal inventions too.

  • Comrade Stalin

    LURIG:

    Are you trawling these boards just looking & searching for offence? Nothing wrong with gay rights & civil partnerships but most heterosexual people view marriage as the formal declaration of their love & intention to procreate. Gay people can’t do that within the boundaries of Biblical & State interpretations of marriage.

    When did you join the DUP ?

    It’s the fundamentalists within the gay community who are pushing this as many gay people are quite happy with formal recognition of their unions without religious marriage.

    Yes, that reminds me of those many Catholics who turned out to celebrate Orange marches going past, until those pesky Shinners started stirring things up.

    You will find that 99% of the North’s Christian community, both Catholic & Protestant, are totally against gay marriage for the above reasons.

    OK, so now you’re inventing random statistics and posting them as fact.

    Gay adoption is also something that many are opposed to. I am sorry if this offends you but we cannot go against nature’s laws and the natural acts of procreation.

    Your contribution is just a series of repeated stupid myths, and this one is the worst of all. It’s definitely news to me that people have sex only to procreate. I know married straight couples who have no intention of having children.

    These constant demands and the intimidating push for them do a lot of damage to gay rights as do ‘Jesus is a Fag’ banners at Gay Pride.

    Absolutely. Just like those uppity taigs who damaged their own cause by having the audacity to say critical things about the regime.

    Jesus Christ man, sit back and read what you just wrote. It drips with hypocrisy, hatred and prejudice. Swap any mention of “gay” up there for “Catholic” and you’ve got an Ian Paisley stump speech from the 1970s.

    You need to acknowledge your inner bigot.

  • Brit

    “I am sorry if this offends you but we cannot go against nature’s laws and the natural acts of procreation”

    Contraception, anybody?

    “Furthermore when is the state going to formally recognise CHRISTIAN rights”

    Christians have full rights to believe and worship as they see fit, and to try to convert those of us who are not christian. I see Christians on TV, I read them in the paper and I hear them on the radio.

    However the state ought to be secular and neutral – and accordingly the state should recognise gay marriage. Unfortunately the states in Britain and Ireland (eg) are not neutral and offer special protection for Christianity and other religions (blasphemy laws and religious hatred prohibition).

    Yes some gay (and straight) people are happy to have long term exclusive relationships which are not formal marriages, but thats no reason to deny the right to those that do want it.

    I’m an atheist but I had the right to get married(although didnt expect any sanction from a religious institution). Gays have the right to marry but no right to do so with the santion/recogniation of the Catholic Church, The Chief Rabbi, etc.

  • fair_deal

    Pretty reasonable crticisms of the direction Amnesty international has gone but he has picked an issue as the basis whoch means no one will listen to those criticisms. It is increasingly clear that rightsindustry has moved away from an agenda that most on the left and right could identify with to one that is increasingly aiming to alienate.

  • sj1

    I guess that’s a liberal invention.

    So? Does that negate my point?

  • blinding

    Those who are against Gay marriage or any gay rights for that matter always seem to be obsessed with what goes on in gay bedrooms.

    Would some hetrosexual marriages survive this thorough examination of their bedroom practices by these “moral” guardians.

    Those with a fulfilling sex life are not that interested in the sex life of others.

    To the morally outraged I say

    Go and get a fulfilling sex life if you desire it.

  • sj1

    Norm wants a reason for gay marriage.

    Does he want a moral or rational one?

    Morally – there is no reason.

    Rationally? – There is no one.

    This ‘right’ to marry is based on desire/want, not need. If we all demanded rights based on our desires what then.

    The rights industry is like FD said, becoming something unrecogniseable to those on the left or right, it has taken on a life of its own. It has to in order to justify its self, and the jobs it creates and the burden it places on society in terms of funding and cost of their outrageous and daft policies. Wheres the reason for that?

    Those with a fulfilling sex life are not that interested in the sex life of others.

    A good reason not to parade your sexuality on the back of a lorry in the centre of town and shove it in everybodies face whether they want to know about it or not.

  • Brit

    “Norm wants a reason for gay marriage” – No he challeneges those opposed to a right to marriage for gays to provide a good moral reason for their opposition.

    There is no “rights industry” – it is a fiction created by the Daily Mail, et al.

  • blinding

    Why are some people so threatened by gay marriage.

    What fear or insecurity do they have about it.
    Why do the believe the sky will fall in if their is gay marriage.

    Thousands of people get maried every day. I suppose that if I wanted to I could let this get to me for some prejudice or other.

    Would it make any difference to me if some of these coupls were gay.
    The answer is no of course unless I go out of my way to make a big issue out of it for myself.
    I shall not bother. Live and let live.

  • kensei

    Pete is basically right. For once. The problem is that the word “marriage” represents both a legal contract and a religiouus ceremony. At any point gay people could get married if they could find a religion to do it. Buddhists probably would. There are undoubtedly Christain sects that would do it now. The Quakers have just voted in favour. No one can take that from them, if they are religious as that relationship is between them and God. They have no right to demand of other religions that don’t hold with it that they should be allowed married in their churches, any more than they have the right to come into a Catholic Church and demand that it drop belief in transubstantiation. And that’s a right they wll never have.

    The problem was always with the legal contract side – next of kin rights, inheritance rights, tax breaks. That problem has largely been solved, certainly within the UK. The sensible option is to drop the word “marriage” from the legal context – straight or gay and leave it to religion.

  • Different Drummer

    Yes The DUP & The TUV supporters are at it again only this time done with more than the love for a special hobby this time it’s with real passion.

    A fine illustration of the ratcheting up of the pre-election hate over the next 18 months. Gay marriage was a key issue in republican victories in 2000 and even more so in 2004 in North America.

    Y’know the drill – lots of loud fundis shouting “Is this what YOU want!!’ Because in their world of fear and loathing – they like to suggest that it is one thing to fear the unknown but another to let these people make the unknown part of YOUR life!!??

    Their discourse thrives on fear and the only equality they promote is the equality of misery.

  • sj1

    Different drummer what rot you speak.

    When something is called a ‘right’, it is given authority. No one is allowed to argue against it. A right should be something that is a fundamental human entitlement, something that occours naturally.

    Its got nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with clear thinking, and how people in society should relate to its institutions, like marriage.

    What are the consequences for society if some shout and scream that gay marriage is a right. It’s a negative right, because there are no good consequences for society in the belief for such a right.

    There is no “rights industry” – it is a fiction created by the Daily Mail, et al.

    £70 million a year is an expensive fiction from the daily mail. Wise the bap ffs.

  • Big Maggie

    sj1,

    “What are the consequences for society if some shout and scream that gay marriage is a right. It’s a negative right, because there are no good consequences for society in the belief for such a right.”

    Who’s shouting and screaming? I see only gays and lesbians agitating for their form of marriage to be recognized as being of equal legitimacy to others.

    I can imagine that in the time of the Suffragettes, some purple-faced MP might well have spoken these words in the Commons:

    “What are the consequences for society if some shout and scream that the vote for women is a right? It’s a negative right, because there are no good consequences for society in the belief for such a right.”

  • Brit

    “£70 million a year”

    Where does this figure come from and how is it calculated? What is this “industry”? Judges and courts applying that law of the land? Lawyers representing their client’s best interests. Individuals asserting their legal rights, or Trade Unions doing so on their behalf. Good – that is a basic feature of a liberal democratic society.

    Back to the topic in hand what possible harm could result for society if gay marrieages were recognised by the state? No one is forcing any religious institution to do so or preventing them from preaching that gays are sinful?

  • blinding

    Brit said

    “Back to the topic in hand what possible harm could result for society if gay marrieages were recognised by the state? No one is forcing any religious institution to do so or preventing them from preaching that gays are sinful?”

    Some of them are against it and they do not even seem to know why they are against it.
    It looks like they are searching around for an enemy(victim) to give them some kind of validation of their entire belief system.

    How insecure they are in their beliefs that something such as gay marriage brings their belief system crashing down around them.

    Don’t worry gay people will not force the dissenters to attend their marriages. Happen they would prefer their friends and relatives there.

  • sinless

    God be with the days when Amnesty International, albeit an MI5 set up, actually cared bout prisoners in hell holes (not the 6 cos of course – excluded as it was from AI’s conscience).

    [Play the ball – edited moderator]

  • RepublicanStones

    Lurig ever hear of a man called Pádraig Pearse?
    Remember what he wrote about cherishing all the children of the nation equally, nevermind that he may have been homosexual himself?

  • John45

    I am not commenting on posts above, but would like to point out the need to define the difference between civil partnership and marriage.
    Many disputes are worsened by a failure to define terms/language.
    Religious people are not bothered usually by civil partnership laws, but see marriage in a religious sense (Bible) and also for the raising of children.
    There is a diluting of words/meaning today, especially by those (on any side) with particular agendas. The removal of any religious meaning from events is one. See below, referring to a Requiem Mass for the late President Aquino.

    Friends, family extol Cory during necrological service
    KIMBERLY TAN and ANDREO CALONZO, GMANews.TV
    08/04/2009 | 10:03 PM

    | | More
    Former President Corazon Aquino was remembered as a best friend, a caring boss and most especially, a source of strength to others during a necrological service Tuesday at the Manila Cathedral.

  • Different Drummer

    @Sj1

    Rot to you in any case – not meant for you

    But This is:

    NO SURRENDER!!

  • sj1

    I can imagine that in the time of the Suffragettes, some purple-faced MP might well have spoken these words in the Commons:

    “What are the consequences for society if some shout and scream that the vote for women is a right? It’s a negative right, because there are no good consequences for society in the belief for such a right.”

    It ain’t called ‘universal’ for nothing, as opposed to marriage. The right to marriage is not universal.

    Brit you haven’t heard of the rights industry? EHRC? Theres is one in Belfast, soon to get another two members, of course they do this for free?

    8.@Sj1

    Rot to you in any case – not meant for you

    But This is:

    NO SURRENDER!!

    No surrender of what dense drummer? Your ignorance?

  • sj1

    @ maggie. Universal ie universal sufferage?

    Dense drummer might not geddit.

  • Different Drummer

    Sorry SJ1

    What I meant to say to was:

    No regrets No Apologies AND No Surrender!!

    -Don’t fancy doing the master degrees at dwan thing with you -you might get off on it 😉

  • sj1

    -Don’t fancy doing the master degrees at dwan thing with you -you might get off on it 😉

    I might. yawwwwnnnnnn

    Do you understand the debate. I doubt it. I’m not objecting to gay marriage, I’m objecting to it being called a right.

  • Big Maggie

    sj1,

    In a hundred years time folk will be looking back at these times in the same way we look back at the women’s suffrage movement. They’ll think us at best quaint and at worst barbarous that we didn’t consider gay marriage a right.

    It’s how civilization progresses, in small but purposeful steps, with many attempting to thwart progress but losing out to decency and humaneness in the end. We need only look at certain Islamic theocracies to see how we Europeans were centuries ago.

  • otto

    People’s equity alarms go off whenever new “rights” are declared which they fear will lead to a group of citizens taking more from society than they return.

    The title of this thread has its arse and its face turned about. The question should be “what good moral reason is there for extending recognition to ‘gay marriage’?”. IMHO the answer should be plenty – marriage, gay or straight, supports stability and security in the lives of the people declaring their commitment to one another and helps people to enjoy a maturity in their relationships which can only help to strengthen society.

    I would rather my children grew up in a world where gay people were open but settled in their relationships than one where a section of society was forced into a position of exclusion and subterfuge.

    That said, I have no idea why people not bound by the obligations of child rearing would want the burdens of marriage.

    Maybe we all just get lonely in our middle years.

  • Comrade Stalin

    sj1:

    Do you understand the debate. I doubt it. I’m not objecting to gay marriage, I’m objecting to it being called a right.

    You’re doing a lot more than that. You’re objecting to it being called on a right on the basis that it isn’t natural (who decides what “natural” is ? Would you care to provide a definition ?), is bad for society (no evidence for this), and that there are no precedents for it in other cultures as it’s just an invention of the liberals (which is a lie – native American cultures treated gay relationships with respect). Basically, you’re a bigot trying, and failing, to disguise the hateful nature of your opinions by placing them alongside more reasoned criticism of the “rights industry”.

    The idea that things which are supposedly not natural and damage society need to be discouraged and specifically denied respect as rights is straight out of Mein Kampf (to hell with Godwin). That’s the path that you’re going down, and people like you need to be countered every step of the way.

    I agree with otto. Sexuality – when consenting adults are involved – is not a narrow list of sexual preferences, but a continuum, and all of it should be accorded with the same respect, and that includes the right to marriage. There is no basis for discriminating against one flavour or another.

    People talking about the need to preserve the sanctity of marriage are not dealing with reality. Cohabiting continues to be on the increase while the rate of marriage breakdowns continues to spiral. The last time I checked, the divorce rate among recent marriages was something like 50%. The ideal model of the nuclear family is on the way out as well.

  • Big Maggie

    Well said, you two: Otto and Comrade Stalin.

    “The ideal model of the nuclear family is on the way out as well.”

    It’s had a reasonable innings. Here in the “West” it began to find favour comparatively recently, about 400 years ago.

    In the rest of the world it’s practically unknown. In most countries outside Europe and North America the extended family is the norm.

  • sj1

    16.Well said, you two: Otto and Comrade Stalin.

    aye

    one says marriage creates stability and the other says it’s breaking down, but well said.

    Stalin like your names sake you are a nasty little name caller, blundering your way through threads.

    There is no basis for discriminating against one flavour or another.

    LOL considering one marriage can produce children, and populate society and the other can’t, thats lame.

    Cohabiting continues to be on the increase while the rate of marriage breakdowns continues to spiral.

    Now there’s dealing with reality for you. What is the rate of break down in cohabitation. O thats right, there are no stats, but there are stats that say the rate of violence in cohabiting relationships is higher than that of married couples, that children have more stable home lives etc. But then you are confused, much too incensed at calling people names that you can’t think straight, or can you think at all?

    That’s the path that you’re going down, and people like you need to be countered every step of the way.

    Every step of what way? Embracing the alternative life style. If gays or anyone else wants freedoms and rights, then freedom of speech also prevails. No one is exempt from criticism, not gays or anyone else, and trying to bully through name calling, bigots and racists and the rest of it, is nothing but a smoke screen for a dictator that is wanting to push his own agenda down the throats of every body else. I guess thats why you chose ‘stalin’?

  • Winter

    There is no right to gay marriage because there is no right to marriage, except as a private contract.

    The privileges afforded marriage by the state (pension and tax laws etc.) are strictly speaking illiberal. The laws themselves are culture bound and based on a presumption of procreation, hence relatives closer than cousins are not permitted to marry even if sex is not involved, and polygamous marriage is not permitted in this society.

    The idea that gays being permitted to marry is “equality” is just as nonsensical as that car insurance companies being forbidden to discriminate on the grounds of sex would bring equality since they are currently not being permitted to discriminate on the grounds of race even when using valid actuarial evidence. Marriage “rights” outside of private contract between the parties (e.g. pension and tax advantages) are illiberal just as forbidding car insurance to use any and all actuarial data in their decisions is illiberal. Illiberal laws which allededly exist to promote a greater good.

    Let’s get the ground rules right and call things as they are. Accepting gay marriage is not more liberal just because legalising gay sex was liberal. Accepting gay marriage makes us less liberal and creates a less liberal society.

    A good essay on gay marriage that will at least provoke thought,
    http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

  • Big Maggie

    sj1,

    “and trying to bully through name calling”

    Ahem, did you forget that you posted this line earlier in the same comment?

    “Stalin like your names sake you are a nasty little name caller”

    One could not make it up :^)

  • Big Maggie

    Winter,

    A very thought-provoking comment. Thank you for that.

    I’m head and ears into that article you linked to.

  • Winter

    Brit

    Back to the topic in hand what possible harm could result for society if gay marrieages were recognised by the state? No one is forcing any religious institution to do so or preventing them from preaching that gays are sinful?

    I really advise you to read,
    http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

    The honest answer to the question is that we do not know. However look at the case of liberalisation of divorce law in the above. It HAS caused harm. It may be argued by some that it has prevented more harm than it caused but harm was created, and those who supported it used the same faulty logic they’re now using about gay marriage, i.e. they’re arguing in a self centred manner and not about the marginal case.

  • sj1

    Stalin like your names sake you are a nasty little name caller”

    One could not make it up :^)

    He called the names first and his stimulus got a response o;)

    I notice you didn’t call him on any name calling, a little bit of bias there maggie? You agree with someone, it’s ok to call a different opinion names, when you don’t it’s a fault.

    You couldn’t make it up0)

  • Big Maggie

    Winter,

    Interim update: That’s a bloody fantastic article!

    Everyone on this thread should read it.

    And back to the reading thereof I go….

  • Big Maggie

    sj1,

    You really don’t understand irony, do you?

    Anyhow, I’ll leave you to puzzle that out. I’m away to that Jane Galt article.

  • sj1

    Anyhow, I’ll leave you to puzzle that out.

    Puzzle out that you’ve no argument to counter with but want the last word.

    Go on have it. o;)

  • Different Drummer

    SJ Replies:

    I’m not objecting to gay marriage, I’m objecting to it being called a right.

    And your objecting to it does not make it not right.

    There now did that warm you up for our Masters at Dawn contest?

  • sj1

    I’m not objecting to gay marriage, I’m objecting to it being called a right.

    And your objecting to it does not make it not right.

    neither does your support of it

    There now did that warm you up for our Masters at Dawn contest?

    aye that was real sharp.

    I’m all warmed up now, ready to go like.

    How long did it take you to think of that? How much help did you get?

    You’ve knocked me down with that one!

    wow!

    Looks like you’re a real sharp shooter o;)

  • Big Maggie

    Winter,

    That is certainly one thought-provoking article. She’s a very persuasive woman!

    These lines really made an impact on me:

    “The argument that gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage because you can’t imagine it changing your personal reaction is pretty arrogant.

    “It imagines, first of all, that your behavior is a guide for the behavior of everyone else in society, when in fact, as you may have noticed, all sorts of different people react to all sorts of different things in all sorts of different ways, which is why we have to have elections and stuff.

    “And second, the unwavering belief that the only reason that marriage, always and everywhere, is a male-female institution (I exclude rare ritual behaviors), is just some sort of bizarre historical coincidence, and that you know better, needs examining.

    “If you think you know why marriage is male-female, and why that’s either outdated because of all the ways in which reproduction has lately changed, or was a bad reason to start with, then you are in a good place to advocate reform.

    “If you think that marriage is just that way because our ancestors were all a bunch of repressed bastards with dark Freudian complexes that made them homophobic bigots, I’m a little leery of letting you muck around with it.”

    Once again, thank you for bringing it to our attention.

  • Different Drummer

    As I said SJ

    That was just a warm up…you too opened with a sentence….

    My point was that your objection can only be rhetorical – so that’s why you can make the distinction between gay marriage and the RIGHT to gay marriage.

    The distinction can be true or false depending on who you are and what you want form society.

    Now for those who do NOT have the right to marry a gay partner they see it as a right – to be pursued.

    Because in modern post enlightenment societies rights are (like it or not) predicated on the RIGHT to pursue them.

    For those who now have those rights they accept it as a another extension to type of freedoms that can be won – if fought for.

    Prior to the change the debate understandably is on weather it is a good thing or a bad thing.

    This in turn can not be divorced form the process of modernity as a force in western societies collectivizing the consciousness’ of the oppressed and their strategies for extending their freedom – as opposed to the ideology and consciousness of the powerful and conservative elements in society who do not wish the freedoms they have won being extended to others who are pursuing them.

    As you said WOW!! it is that simple….

    Now the question then is will the change from no right to gay marraige to a right to gay marriage what is or is not GOOD for those societies.

  • Different Drummer

    ……that stray sentence was about democracy versus theocracy more of which later.

  • Different Drummer

    According to todays Independent

    The gay community is not so different in its was from the rest of society:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/first-the-civil-partnerships-now-the-civil-dissolutions-1767362.html

  • Brit

    Winter wrote “Brit

    “Back to the topic in hand what possible harm could result for society if gay marrieages were recognised by the state? No one is forcing any religious institution to do so or preventing them from preaching that gays are sinful?”

    I really advise you to read,
    http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

    I have read it.

    I have to concede that it is possible for some harm to society to result from such a change. However, I do not think this is a likely outcome and am not at all convinced by the purportedly analagous “examples” given in the piece. Break down in family and law and order in the inner cities in the later half of the 20th Century is a complex phenomemon and tying it to welfare laws and divorce laws is a mere hypothesis and not a very convincing one.

    Second, and probably more importantly, when we are dealing with rights these must trump utilitarian arguments – particularly unsubstantiated speculative ones. Pre-trial killing all those accused of theft would no doubt reduce theft but it would also be wholly unjustifiable infringement of human rights.

    There were arguments that abolition of slavery or giving women the vote could have had damaging consequences, but even if true this would not change where the justice of the issue lies. Britain’s withdrawal from its empire in India was at the time likely to (and indeed did) lead to massive communal violence and truama – but that doesnnt mean that it was not the right thing to do.

    Finally I would have to say this is not exactly a particularly important issue generally or for the empancipation of gays. The absence of a right to marriage is not a massive harm and there are plenty of places where gays live with the most horrific oppression at all times.

  • Rory Carr

    People do get so het up over the little side issues, the petty things.

    Rather than getting themselves in a tizzy about who marries who can they not see that the only thing that concerns them personally is whom they themselves may marry and that the only things that are important about any marriage other than their own is whether or not they get an invitation to the wedding and whether or not there is plenty of food, drink and music at the reception?

  • blinding

    Well said Rory Carr

  • daisy

    Recently, the current incumbent of the vatican accused homosexuals and transsexuals of causing the breakdown of family life. No mention of the damage to families that routine abuse of children does, I noted.

    Here, we have people frothing at the mouth over the same issue on the same basis of prejudice, hatred and intolerance. Consensual sex between two people is the business of no one other than the two people who have consented. Why do people get so hot under the collar about it? Injustice, famine, illegal wars all make me very angry; how two (or more – I’m not judging) people choose to spend their private time is about as much interest to me as who’ll win the Ashes.

  • Pigeon Toes

    Daisy,

    I agree completely with your thoughts.

    The only marriage that is of any interest to me is my own.

  • Big Maggie

    daisy,

    “Why do people get so hot under the collar about it?”

    Indoctrination? The community to which they belong? Their upbringing?

    Probably a combination of all three, and a primitive human mistrust of “otherness”.

  • Different Drummer

    To Roy and The Daisy

    Is Gay Marriage off Topic?

    Depends as I said who you are and where you are.

    If you live in the USA it was a huge election issue that guaranteed the re-election of George Bush. (fear as a political lever).

    A Live Issue Here?

    If you live here will campaigning against gay marriage become a live election issue – as much an issue as (failing/not failing) Sinn Fein? – no definitely not, because the law was brought in by Westminster and it would be difficult to achieve the repeal of a UK law by electing MPs to Westminster with that as one of their (un) achievable aims.

    – No why it *is* important is because for the very reason that it *is* peripheral to most peoples’ experience.

    And as you say Roy and Daisy it doesn’t frighten you.

    No problem there granted.

    But as I keep saying these discourse(s) – these entreaties, appeals, shouts, and screams are aimed at those who clearly have an issue with the subject and do wish to frighten people and making them fearful by suggesting that it will be no longer a peripheral to their lives if gays and their supporters win or remain in power.

    So part of the TUV and Jim Allister’s aim is to say to those who have voted DUP – that they not only put SF in government by doing so but they also betrayed the DUP of Save Ulster From Sodomy campaign.

    That is the relevance of the thread and I think Kind Admin was right to start it. Yes that lead to bally hoo (what doesn’t on Slugger?) but the real and relevant questions do in time get asked.

    And must be answered.

  • Comrade Stalin

    sj1:

    LOL considering one marriage can produce children, and populate society and the other can’t, thats lame.

    But that isn’t your argument. You are arguing against gay marriages, not against marriages that do not produce children. What do you want to do – require that people take fertility tests ? Make them sign a contract that says they must procreate ?

    Just for the record, how many children have you got ?

    Now there’s dealing with reality for you. What is the rate of break down in cohabitation. O thats right, there are no stats,

    Here’s the second hit of a google search for “marriage breakdown rates” : link. Are you going to debunk it ? Do you really believe that, say within the past 15 years, the ratio of married couples to cohabiting long term relationships has even been static ?

    Marriage is a joke. Every single one of my American friends has been married at least twice. In one case, three times before she was 35. One of my friends closer to home was separated when the marriage was just over a year old (following a seven year relationship – that came as a shock to all concerned). Marriage is disposable. The reasons for that are nothing to do with homosexuals, transvestites, or anyone else.

    but there are stats that say the rate of violence in cohabiting relationships is higher than that of married couples, that children have more stable home lives etc.

    I googled those search terms but wasn’t able to find any statistics. I won’t dispute your claims but I’d like to be able to examine them more. Is violence between couples more likely to go unreported within the context of a marriage ?

    I’m sceptical about the implication that going out and getting a marriage certificate is a solution to domestic violence or child neglect, which is the underlying implication of your point of view. The problems are deeper and more complicated than that.

    But then you are confused, much too incensed at calling people names that you can’t think straight, or can you think at all?

    I’m very incensed by the hatred, bigotry and prejudice you are dressing up in intellectual language, yes. I find it strange that people would not be upset by those things.

    Every step of what way? Embracing the alternative life style. If gays or anyone else wants freedoms and rights, then freedom of speech also prevails.

    I didn’t deny you your freedom of speech, indeed I would defend it were it to come under attack. I said that you must be countered and we need to ensure that your hateful opinions don’t gain traction and are exposed for the prejudices that they are.

    No one is exempt from criticism, not gays or anyone else, and trying to bully through name calling, bigots and racists and the rest of it, is nothing but a smoke screen for a dictator that is wanting to push his own agenda down the throats of every body else.

    I don’t see how I’m bullying you, these are words on a computer screen and I have no capacity (or more importantly, will) to silence you. The point of view of people like you needs to be out in the open for everyone to see, and everyone needs to understand exactly where it leads.

  • soandso

    Wee bit late in replying but anyways.

    The way I see it is that if marriage is religius then leave it up to the Churches unless the tax payer is paying for the churches.

    Also what do you call a hetrosexual couple who get married in a registry office? Married. Why is it not hte same for homosexuals? If marriage was just for the religious then I wouldn’t question it but atheists get married in religious-less services and are then labelled as married. Surely it should be the same for homosexuals?

  • Rory Carr

    Actually it is untrue to say that people marry either in a church or in a registry office unless that is they actually do the dirty on the altar steps or on the registrar’s desk. Strictly speaking a marriage is simply a coming together. In humans this implies a physical joining through means of sexual congress, in carpentry we speak of marrying one piece of wood to another by fixing them so together with dovetails or even with screws (which might give us the slang verb ‘to screw’ someone in human terms).

    So it is that a priest does not marry a couple (especially true if he has taken a vow of celibacy) but rather that the marriage of the couple to each other, which is an independent act that the couple take together, is blessed by the priest as a token of the church’s recognition of that act in the eyes of Almighty God. The registrar simply registers the couple’s assent to their consent to marry each other for the state records and as witness thereof.

    So go ahead, my dear peeps, and merrily marry away with each other as you choose, making sure to take cogniscance of the possibility of procreation and of the transmission of disease and the further consequences that such may entail and always being aware of responsibilities to the emotional consequences on the other of your actions. If you need state or church approval or recognition then there may be a problem if you are a same-sex couple but you could always join the Quakers or, if simple recognition is all you want, you could always boast to your mates next day down the boozer.

  • Different Drummer

    Yes Roy and is judgement day for those who do:

    “So go ahead, my dear peeps, and merrily marry away with each other as you choose, making sure to take cogniscance of the possibility of procreation and of the transmission of disease and the further consequences that such may entail and always being aware of responsibilities to the emotional consequences on the other of your actions. If you need state or church approval or recognition then there may be a problem if you are a same-sex couple but you could always join the Quakers or, if simple recognition is all you want, you could always boast to your mates next day down the boozer.”

    The possibility of marriage sex being an act hutzppa was always there do you think it is a bad thing Roy?

    Not sure what or why you wrote the about it rhetorical registers are a bit mixed -part academic:

    …take cogniscance of the possibility of procreation and of the transmission of disease….

    -part Eeyore

    ..and merrily marry away with each other as you choose…

    You seem to be (un)happy about the prospect of other people enjoying themselves.

    Maybe I shouldn’t care that you don’t care either way….

  • Different Drummer

    sorry this is the less dyslexic version

    Yes Roy and is judgement day close by for those who do:

    “So go ahead, my dear peeps, and merrily marry away with each other as you choose, making sure to take cogniscance of the possibility of procreation and of the transmission of disease and the further consequences that such may entail and always being aware of responsibilities to the emotional consequences on the other of your actions. If you need state or church approval or recognition then there may be a problem if you are a same-sex couple but you could always join the Quakers or, if simple recognition is all you want, you could always boast to your mates next day down the boozer.”

    The possibility of marriage/sex being an act hutzppa was always there – do you think it is a bad thing Roy?

    Not sure what or why you wrote what you did as your rhetorical registers are a bit mixed -part academic:

    …take cogniscance of the possibility of procreation and of the transmission of disease….

    -part Eeyore

    ..and merrily marry away with each other as you choose…

    You seem to be (un)happy about the prospect of other people enjoying themselves.

    Maybe I shouldn’t care – do you?